Having been auditing the latest uproar onsite - the sudden appearance of shiny new Pokey pups in a number of new accounts - and having puzzled and puzzed over it all for a while (and yes, having chimed in on the side of "At least FOO them, don't just delete"), I finally went and did a little detective work, and at first it did indeed appear that the site's claim that code manipulation was required was legitimate.
Unfortunately, I did not carry it far enough - I have received (off camera) confirmation that even now you can change breeds during a new-join adopt with a URL flipper - the breed-specific URL appears after name and gender are selected, and a link to a Forum thread concerning one of - if not the very first - cases documenting it happening has been kindly provided. (I must say I am astonished that it was not quietly disappeared from the Forums...) It appears that the first instance (or close to it) was not only a new and inexperienced member who not only didn't know what Pokeys were, but didn't even actually WANT one, lol. Nice to see that some of the respondents immediately tried to protect her from the predators...still not sure how the URL flipper came into play, but it looks conclusively innocent unless it's the best-thought-out and cleverest case of CYA I've even seen, lol.
Pokeys do indeed seem to have been removed from the page coding now so that their breeds/numbers can no longer be accessed, accidentally or otherwise. Crucifying people - or their pets - for something that was publicly available at the time, however, especially legitimate new joins, is probably the most inappropriate action the site could take. Like the male Calicos (a genuine glitch, not just existing code, and not only still onsite, but breedable), these pups are the result of an oversight on the part of the coders for which the - now paying - membership cannot and SHOULD not be held responsible, much less culpable.
At the VERY least, these pets should remain in their new owners' hands in their Foo incarnations - strictly speaking, they ought to be allowed to remain Pokeys. The only issue I see with that - and it IS valid - is that we will have yet another "rare glitch pet!" for people to fight over. Perhaps their owners could agree to sign a "non-tradeable" agreement as a condition of keeping their babies...providing a face-saving way out of this dilemma without injury or hard feelings on EITHER side.
(Should I CC this to one of the Forum threads, guys?)
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.
I know someone who figured this out when it happened and explained how it was done to PL... many hours before an announcement was ever made. I do believe they must have changed the coding for the adoption page as it was simply a matter of putting a different number in the URL. I'm sure it's been fixed now to where it doesn't show that, and good news for Foo because now anyone trying it will believe what they're selling which is that it was some sort of manipulation and not a matter of a simple URL number.
ReplyDeleteI love reading these Canaan, but I was there when some people I knew were working to figure this out. Once they had, they "shared" how to do it for anyone who wanted one and was willing to risk it all on the chance that maybe they could keep them. So it was spread how to do this, and many people did it just that way - by changing a number in a URL.
Of course they changed the way that's done after the fact lol, so much easier to say it is surely a hack now.
hmm. not that I'd put it past them, but if the coders they have are THAT good, there's no excuse for a lot of the other problems we have...any way you can connect me with the"original" method descrip?
DeleteAnd if (as it appears) they were able to neatly delete the Pokey numbers/names/item lines from the Page Source listing - thus removing them from the ones that would come up with a flipper - which would not have been especially difficult,why bother to change the overall coding for the Join adopt page, which WOULD be a major production?
I'm really hoping the members are on the side of the angels - and I STILL greatly disagree with the way the site is handling the fait accompli, considering all that's involved - and would love to be able to conclusively document this one way or the other. Let them know that they can post here without revealing anything about themselves thry don;t want known - thanks!
As Azzy stated (without my name) I reported it to PL 41 hours before an announcement was made. My conversation with her did NOT lead me to believe that it was against the rules. I was also told at that time that the admins knew, that they were working on it. I told PL exactly how to so it, so I honestly had a good laugh when I saw it announced they took so long because they had to figure it out. It has not been fixed and honestly isn't hard to fix. They only need an if then statement for each pokey id...if 14 then give 4. They knowingly allowed members to continue to make accounts for 41 hours. There was over 200 accounts made in that 48 hours, 70 were baby pokeys and the others were failed attempts...
DeleteIt took 24 hours before ANY of the mods tried to discourage any of the members to not do it, by this time most the damage was done. They made a lot of money, they refuse to refund...I've already filed a grievance with my CC and am making a letter of complaint to the BBB. I paid for a pet and I expect to have that pet, if I can't have the pet I want my money back. Although they are no longer accredited with them...they have a C rating that will keep going down.
What really gets me is the FA that was congratulating members on their awesome finds, to which I'm positive of at least 2 of them trying themselves...this did nothing to discourage members from trying...
Canaan, message me on FB...
I'm not sure if there is any use in fighting them because when you joined (AND when you did the hack), you agreed to their terms of use. According to that terms agreement, hacking the site to get pets that are not offered is against the rules and they have the right to suspend or terminate your account and NOT refund you. You have the right to quit. Even if the FAs fail to enforce the rules, what they say does not supersede the terms agreement. Just so you know.
DeleteObviously you know nothing about coding and programming...
DeleteI however have a degree in multimedia which did include programming. My husband also a computer programmer by degree, army by trade. There was no breaking of the ToS, I personally did NOT use a program (flipper), algorithm, coding...to call this hacking is actually laughable...really your ignorance amuses me...
That said, whether I fight it or not really doesn't concern you...my CC company agrees with me, maybe even the BBB might. I will however do as I wish regardless of your ignorance...Thank you.
BTW it was an oversight (and still is) on Foo's part not to take those pet id's out in 2009...you can change the id to get any pet not just pokeys...it is a simple to make them unavailable...
You would have to have read the terms of use to know that you had broken them. And you should RE-read them periodically, especially before attempting to obtain pets that you knew you were not supposed to have.
DeleteRegardless of your or your husband's degree in programming, regardless of your opinion on what is and isn't hacking (and yes, URL hacking is "script-kiddie" level hacking, which is why I find it amazing that this exploit slipped past Foo's coders), you went to their page and you tampered with the post variable used in new pet creation. You by-passed the interface and obtained a pet that you were not authorized to have. (And so what if you even paid them $5 to do it - you could have bought expensive software to break into their database to change that ID, but you can't expect them to foot the bill for participating in illegal activities against them.)
Bottom line is you broke the rules, you hacked the URL/post variable and you're at their mercy now. If you try to sue them, they are going to throw the terms at you and a court will decide. I am very interested to see where this goes.
Ummm when did I mention suing them?? That's right I didn't...as if I'm going to sue a company over $5...have you lost your mind??
DeleteYou can continue to call it hacking, doesn't make it so, if everyone who used the url to get a pet hacked the site, they would have all lost their accounts. Hacking is a very serious term and in the past Foo has always acted swiftly to get rid of any members who did so.
Foo made many mistakes with this, it isn't all on the users. Foo was quite happy to wait 41 hours (to which I have proof), while members (even their own fas) attempted to make "Baby Pokeys", more than 200 accounts, not all at $5 some were on plus for 6 months. They still have yet to fix the issue and even I with the simple programming I learned, know how to fix it.
I really could care less what you think, hiding behind a fake name makes any point you might have meaningless...funny that fear can be so overwhelming.
foopets should just go out of business already. they're just a bad joke at this point anyway!
DeleteYou did not mention suing, but you would have to bring the issue to court if you want it resolved the way you feel it should be. Going to the credit card company and telling them to yank the payment is wrong because they don't know the full story, and it is apparent that you are not going to tell them that you broke the terms and this is why Foo took the pet you spent the money on. And since the credit card company believes you, they will yank the payment from FooPets and hit them with a fee that is four times as much as you paid. So not only did you cheat the site to get the pet, but you cost them a lot more money. Encouraging others who exploited the account creation process to call their credit card companies will only cost them more. I'll be surprised if you don't get banned permanently at this point for launching this attack on them. I'd be surprised if others who yank their payments don't get banned, too.
DeleteThe only mistake I believe that Foo made was leaving the pet IDs visible in the URL. Shame on them for that, but when you, the user, have an interest to play the game and especially if you are paying money to use their site, it is in your best interest to follow to rules.
I highly doubt Foo was "quite happy to wait 41 hours" just so they could confiscate the pets later. And fixing the URL dependency does not take away the fact that the exploiting has already occurred. The people there are only human and if they didn't realize this was going to be a problem, then you shouldn't feel entitled to take advantage of their mistake. The terms agreement clearly states that this is not allowed and Foo has the right to take corrective measures and also not refund you. If some people paid for the six month subscription when they exploited the site, well, that was an even bigger mistake than just paying five bucks. It doesn't make the act of exploiting any less wrong.
I was quite forthcoming with my CC company...I explained exactly what I did, how I did it and what the ToS said...with that, they are filing a grievance with the payment department of foopets...where that goes is now up to all of them. If Traci wanted to "Ban" me she would have when I told her I was doing it last week. She thanked me for letting her know and thanked me for playing. So either she doesn't care, or my support argument holds some merit...
DeleteYou have no idea what has transpired with me and support, where this has gone and what will be made of it. I'm not breaking the ToS to show you either. You can be on your high horse and tell me I've done wrong till you're blue in the face, doesn't make you right. It only makes you righteous...but again, hiding who you are only tells me your point is meaningless...you don't have enough conviction to show who you are. That's your choice, I at least am not hiding.
"I was quite forthcoming with my CC company...I explained exactly what I did, how I did it and what the ToS said...with that, they are filing a grievance with the payment department of foopets...where that goes is now up to all of them."
DeleteYou told them you broke the rules outlined in the terms, gave the baby Pokey back as requested, and the CREDIT CARD COMPANY decided on their own to file a grievance? What do you expect that to amount to? Are they also yanking the payment and incurring a fee to FooPets?
You saying I broke the rules and them feeling I broke the rules are two different things. You are not the end all to be all of what actually happened. Just because you say I broke a rule doesn't mean I did. I told them EXACTLY what I did, I told them EXACTLY what the ToS said...EXACTLY what the company decided to do in this situation...THEY agreed with me. As I said "they are filing a grievance with the payment department of foopets...where that goes is now up to all of them"
DeleteWait a second, I don't recall telling you or saying here I "gave the baby Pokey back as requested"??
I don't make the rules at FooPets, but I DID read the terms. The terms, which I have quoted many times during this discussion, state that doing what you did was a violation of the agreement made between you and FooPets. It's not about how I feel or how you feel. The bottom line is you broke the rules and they have the right to suspend or terminate your account because of it. So you're mad about it? Sure, you can rant and argue and file complaints and whatnot, but that isn't going to make you right for tampering with their data to obtain an unauthorized pet - EVEN if you paid for it.
DeleteYes, it is FooPets' sole discretion as to how they enforce their rules clearly outlined in their terms. Yes, I am not qualified to enforce their rules. Am I enforcing their rules? No. I am merely citing them in this debate about whether or not the users were cheating when they hacked a URL with a URL flipper to obtain a baby Pokey.
When I said, "You told them you broke the rules outlined in the terms, gave the baby Pokey back as requested, and the CREDIT CARD COMPANY decided on their own to file a grievance?" ...I was asking a question.
Please look up the word "hack" you are really using it wrong...
DeleteThere was no need for a question, I clearly stated exactly what I did and how I did it where the CC company is concerned. YOUR interpretation of the "Rules" and what I know to be not breaking them...not the same. If I wanted to "Including but not limited to cheat codes, algorithms, multiple identify tactics, exploits or similar measures to gain, or attempt to gain unearned FooDollars, items, pets, or access to FooPets or information or images that have not officially been announced or made public properly by FooPets." I could easily, since I know about 5 glitches on the site right now...that I DON'T exploit because that would be cheating. I use to find them (before, during and after I worked for them) and tell the site what they were and how to fix them if I knew. Some very major ones at that (which I don't bother doing anymore, because I just don't care like I use to), also someone paid on the site took credit for the discoveries.
THIS WAS NOT a cheat or hack program...I in NO way set out to gain something unearned or unpaid for. Even AFTER I told PL what was done, how it was done...my feelings on it...all I got was an agreement in my thinking. Nobody defending themselves on this blog had any malice intent. None of us knew that what we did at that time would be looked at as a cheat...to which that term does NOT apply to what I personally did...
So again you can talk till you're blue in the face, hiding behind an anon name...doesn't make you right.
hack1
Deletehak/
verb
2. use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system.
That is the definition I got from Google for "hack." You've already told us that you used a URL flipper to gain access to a pet ID that was unauthorized, so I think you have admitted that you hacked to get it.
My question was to get clarification.
MY interpretation of the rules has no bearing on how they are used to protect the site, and neither does your opinion or your actions taken to oppose the company. It is up to FooPets whether or not their terms get enforced. (Why are you making a point to argue that my interpretation of the terms are wrong when I have been quoting actual text from them? What interpretation do you have of the terms that make the baby Pokey exploit acceptable use of the site?) Personally, I don't believe that involving the credit card company is warranted in a case like this. The credit card company cannot determine whether or not you broke the rules - that is up to FooPets to decide and they will base their decision on their terms agreement or change the agreement based on their decision. You can get the credit card company to force a refund, but it doesn't make you right, and in fact, would be considered stealing.
If you know of five glitches on the site, you should report them to the admins. And if you worked for the site, you should know that exploiting the site is generally regarded as unacceptable, as stated in the terms. Why aren't you still working for the site?
A URL flipper is indeed a program used to cheat. Look at what the poster called "FTP" had to say about it - she uses it because she is "lazy." The alternative to using a URL flipper would be manually typing in the variable and hitting enter. Had you done that instead, it still would not have made your action to obtain the Pokey correct. The only way to obtain a Pokey without hacking is to buy it from another user. You can't get one from the site because the site doesn't offer them. FooPets sells FOOPETS. Last time I checked the front page, I did not see a Pokey available to adopt. If they wanted you to adopt a Pokey, they would have made it an option you could CLICK ON on the front page.
Yes, I agree, I don't think anyone here did this thinking they would be labelled as cheaters. I don't know about the person who discovered the exploit, though, because what were they doing fiddling with a URL flipper on that page anyway, if they wanted the pet ID they CLICKED ON when they decided to adopt it? I wanted to point out that there is such an uproar about this, yet FooPets has only ASKED for the Pokeys to be given back. If you give the exploited Pokey back, then they won't suspend or terminate your account. They have the right to suspend or ban you just for exploiting, but it is pretty nice of them to give everyone who participated a chance to correct their mistake of breaking the rules to obtain the Pokeys. I don't see what the uproar is all about in regards to that.
What PL says does not supersede the terms agreement, I can't stress that enough. Not even what Traci says supersedes the terms agreement.
I most certainly did NOT say I used the URL flipper. You reread all my posts, don't put words in my mouth, I did NOT use one and that is NOT how you "hack" to begin with. There is more to the word then that and you're absolutely reading it out of context. It takes a lot more then changing an id on a URL to hack their system. This was accessible information, no hacking was needed to get it, it is still there to be gotten...no programs were needed to do it. I personally did NOT "hack", use cheating programs or algorithms...I in no way did anything that wasn't already told to members how to do on their own widget site...
DeletePicking one meaning and trying to use it to fit your meaning doesn't make it the right meaning or use of the word. I did not go into their systems and retrieve anything.
As for them not suspending...there is a reason for that. I personally did NOT break the ToS. Maybe some people did in how they went about it, I know some people did this maliciously after being warned and didn't care...I'm not one of those people. I also wasn't doing it to make money on it...like many members intentions were...but I'll tell you this, NOBODY defending themselves here today used that flipper...Nobody here used a cheat, program algorithm or anything of the sort. Start reading before accusing, you're starting to sound to much like Traci...(hmmm now THAT comment was a Traci-bashing...)
1. hack
v.
1. To program a computer in a clever, virtuosic, and wizardly manner. Ordinary computer jockeys merely write programs; hacking is the domain of digital poets. Hacking is a subtle and arguably mystical art, equal parts wit and technical ability, that is rarely appreciated by non-hackers. See hacker.
2. To break into computer systems with malicious intent. This sense of the term is the one that is most commonly heard in the media, although sense 1 is much more faithful to its original meaning. Contrary to popular misconception, this sort of hacking rarely requires cleverness or exceptional technical ability; most so-called "black hat" hackers rely on brute force techniques or exploit known weaknesses and the incompetence of system administrators.
3. To jury-rig or improvise something inelegant but effective, usually as a temporary solution to a problem. See noun sense 2.
n.
1. A clever or elegant technical accomplishment, especially one with a playful or prankish bent. A clever routine in a computer program, especially one which uses tools for purposes other than those for which they were intended, might be considered a hack. Students at technical universities, such as MIT, are famous for performing elaborate hacks, such as disassembling the dean's car and then reassembling it inside his house, or turning a fourteen-story building into a giant Tetris.
Please excuse me if I was led to believe that you did use a URL flipper if you did not. I know that somebody here was pushing the point that a URL flipper was used in the tampering of the critical variable used in pet creation and that somehow it made it not wrong. So if you did not use a URL flipper, for the record, you cannot use that as your reasoning for why what you did was okay. (It is still not okay even with a URL flipper, says the terms.)
DeleteI just went back to check on Foo's front page and I looked through all the pets. I did not see any Pokeys... only Foo dogs and cats. I am not sure how you can argue that the baby Pokeys were "accessible" as they do not appear to be accessible. I'm on http://www.foopets.com/adoption, what page were you on? "GoPokey.com"? I think they ended that game long ago, so I'm not sure how you could possibly access Pokey data on the FooPets create new account page without hacking the site in some way, be it the URL or some form of injection.
When I pasted the definition of the word "hack" I omitted the first definition, which was "1. cut with rough or heavy blows." I figured posting that was unnecessary, as that meaning had nothing to do with URL hacking. Your definitions are quite elaborate, where did you get them? Anyway, here's where, in your definition, the baby Pokey exploit is described: "most so-called 'black hat' hackers rely on brute force techniques or exploit known weaknesses and the incompetence of system administrators." You exploited a known weakness and the incompetence of system administrators. As I said before, I am amazed that they put the pet ID variable in the URL because that is extremely vulnerable to a point where people actually argue that exploiting that mistake is right or wrong. But this is getting off-topic because the bottom line is you broke a rule, breaching the terms you agreed to as you were breaking the rule. It is ironic how that happened, but it happened, nonetheless, and FooPets does not owe you anything other than a simple, "Thank you for letting me know" and "Thank you for playing."
I personally didn't lead you to believe anything, I've been very literal in all my posts. You assumed, and you know what they say about assuming.
DeleteGoogle what I gave as a definition...you'll find it.
Again taking something out of context...*smh*
As I've repeatedly said, till you reveal who you are, your righteous attitude means nothing. You hide behind false information, misuse of words and much ignorance. You can keep your opinion, all that matters is whether or not the BBB and the CC company sees it our way or their way. With all the evidence put forth (I never leave myself out of the equation and am always honest) they will decide if rules were broken. Just because you quote the ToS with your version of how it should be read, doesn't make it so. Just because Foo made an announcement to save face 48 hours after the fact with a compromise so they aren't the bad guys for things they are partially to blame for, doesn't make them right.
Your last sentence reeks of Traci and the passive aggressive attitude...you can keep it. Your opinion means nothing and won't change what may or may not happen.
If you can't support your claims, then I cannot consider your claims valid. Your definition of "hack" only proved that you did, in fact, hack to obtain an unauthorized pet, so I am not going to research your definitions. I already Googled the definition for you, which also supported my point. Arguing about the definition of "hack" is getting off-topic anyway, because it still does not prove that you did not break a rule.
DeleteAnd yes, my last sentence may have sounded familiar to you because you were the one who told me that Traci said that to you.
"all that matters is whether or not the BBB and the CC company sees it our way or their way."
DeleteThe BBB and your credit card company did not make up the FooPets terms of use agreement and they do not have a right to supersede it. You can force a refund and set out to ruin Foo's reputation, but it doesn't change the fact that you broke a rule. It doesn't make you right or entitled. It reflects poorly on you more so than FooPets, but sadly, FooPets will be paying for the damages.
Had you read the terms of use that you checked the box and agreed to when you hacked the URL to obtain the unauthorized pet, you would know that I have directly quoted the terms. I did not make up my own "version" of them.
I don't have to support my claims to you at all, I'm sorry but your opinion is meaningless. You don't like what I've chosen to do, thats your problem...not mine. I'm not out to ruin the company, I'm out to right a few wrongs, this is NOT the only issue I'm bringing to the BBB.
DeleteDirectly quoting the terms with your interpretation of them...does not make you right. Also picking one part of a sentence that you feel coincides with your thinking of what Hacking means, also doesn't make you right. You can't hack a url, there is programs involved in hacking, code writing involved. Selective reading, picking out what you feel backs your side doesn't support your argument, it only makes you look ignorant. You have no idea what you're talking about and no amount of me trying to tell you otherwise will change that...so I'm not going to bother. Your fear of saying who you are, falseness, inability to comprehend, selective reading and ignorance, make you someone I've no interest in ever knowing or debating further with. You go ahead stand your false ground, hiding behind a mask, you're nothing but laughable.
BTW. I wasn't talking about you quoting me of what she has said...I was talking about the sentence as a whole.
I would be open to debating with you, Lainee.
DeleteI think that a company like Foo should be more like a dictatorship, but open to feedback. The reason being is that ultimately, the heads of the company care the most about its well-being and have the most knowledge of its working parts. What they don't have, though, is an insight to their customers' opinions and desires. So being open to feedback is a very good thing. Not only is it helpful to the company, but the customers appreciate that their voices are being heard, too. I think that running the company like a democracy can get a bit hairy because many customers do not have the company's best interest at heart and will try to push it in the wrong direction.
I think in Foo's case, they see the open discussion as "inciting" because many people are quick to jump in and slam them, causing a huge scene. This forum is probably a good example. When I came here, there were a few people speculating about the way the site was exploited to get the baby Pokeys. They were kind of on the fence as to whether or not this exploit should be considered Foo's fault and if the people who did the exploit were "cheating". I hadn't even formed my opinion until I started responding and realized that based on the terms, it was cheating and although it was a preventable exploit, the bottom line was that the rules had been broken. Shortly after, I got slammed by multiple people who were directing personal insults at me, cussing, laughing at me... I was being bullied. All I did was disagree with their point of view and I gave supporting facts to back up my statements. I have to wonder if this would have taken place in the FooPets forums had they allowed open debate. It probably would seeing that these same people play FooPets. I think Foo has no choice but to suppress the users because many of them can't handle open debate. It is unfortunate because now even the respectful people who can handle debate cannot voice their opinion. It is a case of "a few bad apples ruining it for the bunch."
I think you're right about Foo being able to generate some more revenue by releasing Pokeys to new accounts. However, I am not sure how I feel about allowing the Pokeys that were created by exploiting to be kept by the people who exploited. Your case is different because you bought yours from someone else, but the ones who broke the rules... I don't know. Maybe Foo could decide to temporarily release Pokeys and give the surrendered Pokeys back to the people who came forward. For the ones who did not comply, though, I do not think they deserve to keep the Pokeys that they broke a rule to obtain.
(good grief, lol...)
Deletesorry to miss all the fun, I just got back from an extended - 48 hour plus - stint on the commercial fishing boat I work on...the reason I'm not always around during the spring though autumn period. (and I still haven't gone down Comments from here, momentarily. wanted to address this sequence first.)
Kay, I am rarely on FB and really don't like it much - could you email me - if you have a reason you want me "public" there, I'm not unwilling...it might not even be a bad idea to open a Foop "office" there, as I am now requested not to even MENTION the Foop onsite, much less direct anyone here, even without a link. I think it might even be poetic justice to open a FB edition, and link it to Foo's page, lol...and it would be interesting to see which things might be different in that kind of daylight.
Considering this is a G-rated site-related organ, it seems exceptionally paranoid to fear it so heartily, especially since I was one of the first to trumpet and celebrate Ron's return...he even posted here, as I recall. Hardly a condemnation...
I am (once again) getting dizzy keeping track of who is which "anon"...there is an option to choose any user handle that tickles your fancy included in the options, and I am not NEARLY clever enough to trace it back...please choose SOME kind of name that labels you as an individual, okay? thanks!
To my own personal knowledge, Kaylina knows as much about the site and its operations as anyone - past or present - probably in most cases (present especially), more. And whether a URL flipper was used as most people assume...a process SO common and accepted there are mulitiple browser apps to facilitate it, and no other site I have encountered, a rather long list, has an issue with them...or not, I don't see her doing anything counter to accepted protocols - it has never been her style. Is she a diehard about acquiring new site pets? You betcha, lol, and many of my personals are the breeding result thereof. Would she cheat to get one, by commission, ommission, or deliberate bending of the rules/ToS? Sorry, I just can't see it. And with an impressive collection of site pets of unimaginable rarity already, nor would she need to.
SOMETHING happened - that apparently required absolutely NO knowledge of Foo, Foo pets, or coding skill, and for whatever reasons or by whomever's actions, deliberate or otherwise, it was possible to adopt "new" Pokeys. Word spread, inevitably. Many tried, some succeeded. Did established members suspect that something was odd? Most likely. Did they allow that to get in the way of what must have seemed like a miracle, particularly with admiration from site authority and no word against it? H--L no. FooPets has been "odd' for quite a while now - and a bit sad besides.When something odd occurs that brings this much joy, who is realy going to question why or how?
No no...nothing public...just wanted an easy way to chat privately when we are both online. I've got a few things I wanted to chat with you about that you might find interesting. I like the personal one on one live talking. There is skype also if you use that??
DeleteMaking a group on FB is a great idea, I'm in two really good "secret" ones (means only members can see and post in them). With friends, we enjoy chatting as a group.
Thank you for your much needed kind words.
I have been posting as Anonymous throughout most of this, though there have been a few who have interjected under the same name. Please forgive me for not using a name. I would like to remain anonymous.
Delete(too lazy to change accounts, it's me in either hat - for those who haven't been around a while, I'm Gold Rush/FooBA4U as well)
DeleteKaylina - not party to any of the "chat" systems, but I can email you my phone number. I received a VERY interesting gift and note on the site (6 days ago, I don;t check my gifts that often), that mentioned a Forum thread detailing the process - in such a way that it was clearly code manip - which "for obvious reasons" was deleted. Any scoop on that?
(and did anyone else posting on the Forums involved get any little mesage gifts a while back?)
Anon above - I understand your feeelings, but calling yourself something like "The Other One" or "Balanced Perspective" or some such, will not reveal anything about your identity...but WOULD allow me (and others) to distinguish you as an individual. Plus, mail addressed to "Occupant" - a parallel case - does not receive the serious attention directed messages do.
It must be a different way then I got mine, there was more ways to do it. A url is not a code or part of the coding for the site. I find it funny they have the ID's in the url seeing their competitors site doesn't, so I know it isn't needed. They just haven't gotten to get rid of that I guess...
DeleteSure email me the number, I've got unlimited calling.
A URL is not part of the code in a site, but it can be used to perform exploits, also known as "URL hacks." As I said before, passing variables in URLs is extremely vulnerable, but the practice isn't "wrong" it just opens the site up for easy exploitation. It makes shelter surfing possible, but it also makes, in this case, baby Pokeys possible. I find it funny, too, that this happened because I thought Foo would cover the site better (because users can't be trusted not to "try" things), but we all make mistakes. It makes me wonder what other security breaches are there. I think they used URL dependency here because it was the most convenient method. Has anyone tried entering a pet ID that doesn't exist? Does that let you join with no pet?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell this is the thread that started it all:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foopets.com/topics/show/2499508?forum_id=29&page=2
Now there was a PYL I think that was made prior to her PH, but I wasn't positive on the order. At some point she had mentioned, or someone else had said something about using URLNext to get her. I had some people I was talking to at the time who tried to replicate the glitch. I'm not positive who figured it out, but I know that there was an ID # to it....
Okay, I found the page you should be looking at. If you notice, it DOES say Breed ID = and then a two digit number.
If you click on Adopt a Pet now (pretend you are making a new account), put in a name and pick and gender and click on continue, it will bring you to this page:
https://www.foopets.com/club/join?pet_breed_id=7&pet_name=Buddy&pet_gender=M
Where it says " breed_id=7", you would change the 7 to a different number. 19, for example, is a Pokey German Shepherd, but it won't show you a picture. Hope this helps. So no, they didn't change it I guess, they just probably removed the option.
Also if you use a URL Flipper or URL Next on that page, it will take you to a different breed. Like I just did it with a westie and clicked URL Flipper Increment URL and a Weimaraner replaced the Westie.
DeleteIf people were inserting numbers - rather than just moving up and down the series, then they WERE indeed hacking, as even altering to an existing site line item qualifies. Computers are not very smart...and they remember everything. Even removing the Pokeys as line items in the base code does not prevent the comp from "looking up" the missing number in sequence. ANOTHER argument for getting rid of new-creates (with no new pets coming down the pike, it isn't needed anyway, really - especially on the new join page), and offering new joins selections from the AC/FooShelter.
DeleteOoh I like the idea of offering new joins pets from the Shelter. It would stop the system from creating new pets with every single account. Especially considering a lot of people don't stick around very long...
DeleteAlso I really wouldn't put this in the forums. I mentioned the "pokey thing" (my exact words) just under the context that many people that had created or bought them were bullied very harshly before anyone even decided whether or not it was a cheat, and for simply bringing that up I got a warning about not inciting people. A supposed second warning mind you, and I'd love to know where the first one went. Maybe it got lost in the mail lol, but I sure never got a message previous to my "second" warning.
Deletethere really isn't much there I haven't already stated in one post or another anyway...and in the long run there are much bigger fish to fry (stay tuned, folks, lol).
Deleteon another note, I'm a bit surprised they let me run as wild as I do on the Forums - other than trying to cut the Foop off from the site (I was recently asked to remove NONLINKED references from FooBA4U's profile), no one has made a peep...power of the press, I suppose.
I did the beginning of that and noticed something...I tried with a calico. Because hey, the male calicos existed at one point, right? Nothing changed when I switched the gender to "M" and hit enter on the calico page. I could, however, get to the Pokey ID again...and I'm curious. If they could take the calico adoption code out, whyyy did they never remove the Pokey code?
ReplyDeleteGood question Anon. Why did Foo react at all the way they did?
ReplyDeleteWhy was an ambassador congratulating someone on their baby pokey? Why was it that neither PL NOR ANY ADMIN in charge of it all never said boo in the two days they knew about it? Oh right, they were too busy raking in the money. Not only from people who made these pets, but from people who didn't understand how and spent money creating account after account trying to get one. Must be nice having all that dough.
And NOW, after silence (except for a few Fa's, and let's face it, who is going to listen to them when 75% of the time they're not even on the same page?), after silence, after saying nothing, giving no warnings for at least 2 days, NOW they want to take these pets from people who paid for them in good faith.
My suggestion to anyone who has this issue is this: Report to the BBB, report it to your CC company. They claim they are not giving refunds because people exploited the game, it's not an exploit because you were too lazy to remove the option! We use urlflippers to shelter surf, so unless you want to tell me that's a cheat, Foo, you OWE these people their money.
The site has gone downhill steadily since Ron apparently disappeared and left it in the hands of his incompetent niece. When you have people who have been there since Go Pokey leaving simply because of how ignorant Traci is, there is a problem. She fails at customer service - Oh, I called her once. Yeah, don't ever try that! She made me feel like a criminal although I had done nothing wrong! She fails at understanding the game, or understanding the difference between CODING and changing a number in a URL. She fails. Period. She needs to be taken out please. And don't even get me started on the favoritism shown by her and Parrotlady. The only person left who even seems to care about what is right is Remsie.
For my money (no puns intended), they owe them their PETS.
Deletefrom the link above, it appears that the first (or close to it) WAS not only a new and inexperienced member who didn't know what Pokeys were but didn't even actually want one, lol. Nice to see that some of the respondents immediately tried to protect her from the predators...still not sure how the URL flipper came into play, but it looks conclusively innocent unless it's the best-thought-out and cleverest case of CYO I've even seen, lol.
URL flipping is not the proper way to navigate the site because it is by-passing the user interface. They may allow it for shelter surfing because shelter surfing is harmless, but what occurred in this case was tampering with a variable being passed to the server. Passing variables in URLs is generally a bad idea because the site can't trust that the users won't hack them since they are extremely vulnerable. However, as a user, you are expected not to hack the game even if you paid real money to do the hack. I believe the users should be fully responsible for their actions. They knew they were cheating and they were wrong. If the site chooses to correct the error and refuses to refund them then so be it. The users hacked the variable used in pet creation to gain access to pets they were obviously not supposed to have. Had these Pokeys been blatantly displayed on the page, that would be a different story. The fact of the matter is that the site did not offer these pets for adoption -- they were obtained by cheating, as in tampering with the data being sent to the server. None of these people have a right to a refund, and if they are given one, it will only teach them that cheating is okay.
ReplyDeleteYou make a very valid point...but it appears that in at least one instance - and possibly others - it was done in innocence and/or ignorance (still not sure why, but...), and therefore they could not be expected to "know they were cheating" - the page offered them something and they accepted it without even knowing what it was, much less that it was going to be considered an illegal hack. And new joins cannot be expected to know in advance what the site does and does not offer, much less the reasons behind it. Perhaps the Solomonic route of Fooifying them would be a civilized compromise - those who received them in genuine error would be happy, and those who DID do it deliberately will not get to profit from it.
DeleteThere is also the point that most people - myself included, to a fair extent - don't know enough about the way coding works to even understand URL flipping as a form of hacking, as you are only working with existing, unaltered code the site itself provides. I use it on various sites to simply move from one "legal" URL to another, especially in cases where slow page loading is an issue. Hacking - in the sense of manipulating the browser data to something not readily available - is a different and much more sophisticated animal, and SHOULD be strictly interdicted.
Much as I know I'm gonna get nailed for this I have to argue with this part:
Delete"They knew they were cheating and they were wrong."
My friend told PL how the "cheat" (sorry, my opinion is still, not a cheat, and if they want to say that URL Flippers are banned from site use, then it needs to be banned all over because I use the darned things all the time, I'm lazy lol) My point is, you can't say that something that makes searching for pets easier is okay for one thing but a "cheat" in another instance. A URL Flipper either is or is not a cheat. Which means that Shelter Surfing AND making these pets should fall under the same category. Not say - Shelter Surfing with a URL Flipper, even though you're "manipulating" the URL is okay, but creating new pokeys the same way is a "cheat". That's not right, and it's why a lot of people, myself included, kinda figured this was okay. Did I create one, nope. But to me, I compared it (I see now incorrectly) to the Male Cali glitch which Foo took as their fault.... I figured people wouldn't get in trouble, but since I'm not very liked by the Administration for saying what I think, I didn't want to give them an excuse lol. Besides the point though, this was reported to PL and she, as a site employee, never told the person reporting NOT to do it. Further, you can't possibly expect us to listen to some of those Ambassadors giving warnings as one of them in particular, doesn't even understand the RoC herself. Someone in authority should have made a post - PL would have been a good bet since she is now a PAID employee - in Announcements that said they were looking into the matter and in the meantime, don't try this at home.
I know of one person so far whose CC company is agreeing and saying that since they paid for the goods, they should get either the goods or their money back. I agree wholeheartedly. And since Traci makes a point of never changing her mind or admitting she might be wrong, these pets WILL be deleted. In which case, they should be refunded. They paid for an account with a pet, not an account where they now have to buy a SECOND pet just to keep the account active. Because 0 pets means you get nothing as far as I am aware. So they have to pay for the account, and now pay for a pet that was supposed to be free with the account? How does that work again?
Had someone in charge, in the two days they knew, made an Announcement about not creating these pets, I would be onboard with all the people who say it's their own fault. But many made these pets after they saw a certain Fa congratulating the girl with the first PH on her incredible luck. Unfortunately, that just happens to be the Fa that cleans up after herself and never leaves "proof" laying around of her statements, or her trades.
since established members DO know that Pokeys are not supposed to be on the "new pet" menu - the reason breeding was removed - my sympathies are not 100% with those who rushed to create one once they found out it was possible - "knowing it was cheating" is a tad strong, though. During the initial furor, when the first few came to light, I can understand even a's reacting with joy to an "old friend" returning, but unless all of Admin was asleep, some kind of conference between A's and a's should have been called right off the bat and a uniform policy generated and published - immediately.
DeleteI still firmly believe there has to be a better solution than deleting the Pokeys and offering nothing in their place. A "free" new pet or selection from the AC, converting the existing Pokey to a Foo (though they'd have to track down who the turned-in ones belonged to) - SOMETHING.
I find it very hard to believe that this could be done "by accident." You have to know what you're looking at because what's the chance that the person happened to have their cursor in the right spot in the URL during the account creation process when they accidentally elbowed the number pad? I don't buy it. Some people are very good liars online, especially when there is a lot at stake. And despite the fact that PL was hired, she doesn't work onsite, does she? She may not have fully realized what had actually happened when she gave that user a pat on the back. I'm sure there was quite a bit of discussion going on behind the scenes on this one. I doubt Foo sat back to watch the dough rolling in.
DeleteAs for URL flipping vs. hacking, there is a pretty significant difference. When you're shelter surfing, you're using the URL to query a pet ID to GET it and display it on the page. With this Pokey thing, you're using the URL to POST a variable to the server. One is viewing data and the other is creating data. First generation Pokeys cost a lot these days, don't they? So that special Pokey pet ID has a high price tag on it. If Foo allowed people to run rampant, creating new accounts just to get a $5 Pokey, then they would be lowering the value of the rare Pokeys in the site, which would be upsetting to the proud owners of them. If they stopped people from continuing to do this hack and let them keep the Pokeys, then the users who didn't know this was an option when it happened would say it is unfair that they can't have a $5 Pokey as well. Foo tried to do away with Pokey years ago, my guess is because they wanted to improve the realism of their product. But because of the users, they reluctantly brought Pokey back. Since then, they have been doing what they can to let Pokey die out on its own. They turned Shelter Pokeys into Foos, they weren't updating them, they weren't selling first generation Pokeys, and then they even prevented Pokeys from breeding. Pokey is supposed to be gone, so having the new user creation exploited like this to make more Pokeys is probably not on their agenda, and for that reason, it is understandable that they would want to confiscate the baby Pokeys.
Despite the stance I have on this, I could see, as a way to "meet in the middle," changing the baby Pokeys into FooPets so at least these users' money wasn't wasted. However, the part I keep going back to is the part where the user deliberately broke the terms agreement they actually had to read and check the box and agree to AS THEY WERE EXPLOITING THE SITE. The terms agreement specifically highlights that users are not allowed to "use any 'cheat' or 'hack' programs that extract information or data from FooPets" (this would include the URL flipping plug-in for shelter surfing, by the way, as it is software used for data extraction), "post 'How to' information or links on how to cheat, hack, or extract information or data from FooPets," and "attempt to use FooPets in a fraudulent manner, including but not limited to cheat codes, algorithms, multiple identify tactics, exploits or similar measures to gain, or attempt to gain unearned FooDollars, items, pets, or access to FooPets or information or images that have not officially been announced or made public properly by FooPets." That is what makes this whole baby Pokey venture cheating, and according to the same terms agreement, "FooPets reserves the right to temporarily suspend or permanently terminate any account if the user engages in any of [the items I listed above]." So what I'm getting at is these people who exploited the account creation process are lucky if Foo doesn't decide to ban them permanently and terminate all their accounts for hacking their game. Asking for the Pokeys back and putting through code changes and extra processing to check for tampered data to prevent this exploit from happening in the future sounds pretty mild in the grand scheme of things. And if they did decide to ban the ones who hacked, I believe it also mentions in the terms that the user does not have the right to a refund.
DeleteThe more I think about it, the more I think that asking for the Pokeys back is hardly a slap on the wrist when you consider the consequences outlined in the terms agreement. They could be facing a much bigger loss. I don't blame them for being mad about losing five bucks, but they knew they were gambling... and they should know that the the house always wins.
I haven't read all the dribble on here...sorry it is a lot to read...but I did see as I was scanning the following quote..
Delete"They turned Shelter Pokeys into Foos, they weren't updating them, they weren't selling first generation Pokeys, and then they even prevented Pokeys from breeding"
qpq. Yes they turned them into Foo's...then turned them right back to pokeys in End of April 2011....thousands of them...and members started adopting...
*rme* Anon and which Admin or Ambassador would you be? If you were just a regular player, I can't see any reason for hiding your identity considering you're saying things in favor of Foo, so if "the man" is watching, they'd be nothing but pleased with reading that fluff.
DeleteFor the record, I never said it was PL that congratulated the user, but nice use of attempted camo there, as obviously an employee or volunteer on the site would know to whom I was referring. However, it doesn't work as it's still quite obvious you're not just an average joe player.
You said:
"You have to know what you're looking at because what's the chance that the person happened to have their cursor in the right spot in the URL during the account creation process when they accidentally elbowed the number pad? I don't buy it."
^^ Um. You're talking about URL Flippers, but you say this? Have you ever USED a URL Flipper? Because if so, you'd know that a person may easily have been flipping through the pets with that, not even touching the number pad. I explained that above, if you had taken the time to read it.
And here:
"I'm sure there was quite a bit of discussion going on behind the scenes on this one. I doubt Foo sat back to watch the dough rolling in."
What else, pray tell, were they doing? All one had to do is post a warning. It takes 2 minutes for someone in a position of being in charge to say "Hey, don't do this".
"And despite the fact that PL was hired, she doesn't work onsite, does she?"
You are joking right? She posts things onsite all the time lol. Wow.
I'm probably running out of space, so I will continue below....
"First generation Pokeys cost a lot these days, don't they?"
DeleteLegacy first gens do yes, these would not have been Legacies because their birthdate could not be changed to fall under that category, neither could their ID #. So *might* they have been rare? Most likely, but no, you cannot compare them to Legacies, that is apples and oranges.
"If Foo allowed people to run rampant, creating new accounts just to get a $5 Pokey, then they would be lowering the value of the rare Pokeys in the site, which would be upsetting to the proud owners of them."
Actually, quite the opposite. If Foo had decided to open up Baby Pokey adoption to everyone, it would have made them common. It would NOT have put anymore Legacies in the system, so they would have retained their rarity. Meaning, could someone have a first gen Pokey? Yes, everyone could have one. If everyone can have something, it's not rare. NOT everyone owns an original Legacy Pokey, and those are the ones who would remain rare. Well... the LPGSD's and the LPH's anyhow. And since when does Foo give a care about what users want? When they released the Legacy links in the shelter, I had just paid 2k FDs for a Legacy Pokey Black Lab. Their release effectively made that purchase only worth AC price afterward. I didn't begrudge them though, I am happy that others got the chance to own their dream pets.
"actually had to read and check the box and agree to AS THEY WERE EXPLOITING THE SITE. The terms agreement specifically highlights that users are not allowed to "use any 'cheat' or 'hack' programs that extract information or data from FooPets" (this would include the URL flipping plug-in for shelter surfing, by the way, as it is software used for data extraction)"
And yet people can roam the forums and talk about using this plug-in without worry or concern that they will be punished for it. Interesting right?
I'm sorry, but if the plug-in is considered a violation of the ToS, then they need to tell people it's a violation to use it AT ALL. Not just in this circumstance. Either a URL Flipper is a cheat/hack or it's not. You don't get to say it is in one situation but not the other because the function of that plug-in doesn't change. It increments URLs, it decrements URLs. If the function doesn't change, then that means it should be disallowed across the board.
I don't work for FooPets. All I'm doing is pointing out what is right and wrong because once again, something came up and it's the users against Foo. While I'm amazed that Foo is passing critical variables in URLs, I'm also amazed at the users who did not read the terms agreement and now think they have a leg to stand on when they fight back. Someone said this hack was done by accident. You don't "accidentally" use your URL flipper and end up with a Pokey. And yes, I have tried a URL flipper once, but I don't use it. I don't think you can say why this went one for two days, but regardless, the terms agreement was broken and the users should have know better, had they read it before they agreed to it. That goes without saying. By "onsite" I meant at the physical location, not "on the website".
DeleteAs I said above, it doesn't matter if they don't enforce it, what they say or do does not supersede the terms agreement, which is a legal agreement between the site and the user. The bottom line is, the terms agreement rules. If you don't like it, then don't play on the site. There is no arguing with the terms agreement. And if you do use a URL flipper, there isn't much they can do about it. They can't prove it either. So how can they enforce the rule against it? They can't until they CAN prove it. When someone ends up with a Pokey on the new user page, now they can prove there was something malicious going on because they did not offer that pet on that page. It could only be obtained by hacking.
DeleteAh I deleted my comment because it was rude the way I said it, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure to say it how it won't come off sounding that way.... giving it a shot
Delete" You don't "accidentally" use your URL flipper and end up with a Pokey."
Please, pretty please, try reading before posting. If you don't understand how this happened I explained how it was done. All someone had to do was flip from whatever pet was before a pokey to the number they designated for a pokey and hit select on the pet. So YES, it could have happened accidentally. Am I saying I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was accidental? No. Just that it's possible.
So you don't work for Foo? But you clearly weigh in on their side. What I was wondering, and this is the part that seems to come out rudely no matter how I say it - if you believe you're on the side of the angels, as you clearly do, you feel you have the right of this, but the problem I have with people who feel they are right is, they usually share their name. If you don't work for Foo, you have nothing to hide. You have your opinion, we have ours. You're not going to change my mind, but it would be much easier to take you at your word about not being a foo employee if you'd share your name? We can't do anything but debate you, it's not like you'll be "stalked" lol or harassed for posting your opinion. It's yours and no matter if you're wrong or not, you have the right to it. So what harm in sharing who you are?
You have to hold down three particular keys simultaneously in order to use the URL flipper, so that is worse than using the excuse I made up about elbowing the number pad. It doesn't matter how it was done, though, because it still technically breached the terms. Foo is pretty forgiving for not outright banning these people from their site - THAT is my OPINION. The FACT is that the user interface was by-passed in order to create unauthorized pets, which, according to the terms agreement that every Foo user must agree to when they create an account and as they continue to use the site, is against the rules. You can argue your opinion on how Foo made a mistake or their reaction or how people feel, but the fact is, if you use FooPets, you willingly entered into a binding agreement and part of it was that you wouldn't break their rules. If you disagree with their rules, you have the right to terminate your account. That is YOUR right. THEIR right is to suspend or ban you and not give you a refund. Have they suspended or banned anyone for this yet? Last I heard was that they were merely asking for the Pokeys back and did not have plans to suspend or ban anyone. Is that not true?
Delete" You can argue your opinion on how Foo made a mistake or their reaction or how people feel, but the fact is, if you use FooPets, you willingly entered into a binding agreement and part of it was that you wouldn't break their rules. If you disagree with their rules, you have the right to terminate your account. That is YOUR right. THEIR right is to suspend or ban you and not give you a refund."
DeleteThe "binding" agreement that I agreed to five years ago is nothing like the one that they have now. Of course we all have the right to terminate our accounts but how easy do you find it to walk away from something that you have spent years building up. Yes, they have the right to suspend and ban whoever they want but they also have a duty to provide a decent service to their members. The handling of the Pokey babies situation by the Admin has been wrong from start to finish.
"You have to hold down three particular keys simultaneously in order to use the URL flipper"
DeleteWhat the heck are you even talking about? It's a plug-in dude. You go to Tools > URL Flipper > Increment/Decrement URL and hit okay. There are no buttons, you just click on your browser's toolbar, are we even talking about the same thing lol?
"THEIR right is to suspend or ban you and not give you a refund."
Um, well considering I don't have a BP, no they don't have that right lol.
"Last I heard was that they were merely asking for the Pokeys back and did not have plans to suspend or ban anyone. Is that not true?"
Far as I know there have been some suspensions for people who didn't comply, well that and they took a dog named "Pokey" that was a Foo dog and then suspended the user for getting upset about it.
Nicely skipping over who you are. Until you answer that, I'm done. You have the right to your opinion, but if I'm going to talk to someone who isn't even on the same page as me with how to use A TOOL, then I'm not talking to you til you drop the Anon. And since I know you won't do that, I am done speaking with you. I've explained everything in black and white, it's there if you want to educate yourself. ;)
"You have to hold down three particular keys simultaneously in order to use the URL flipper, so that is worse than using the excuse I made up about elbowing the number pad."
DeleteUmmm No...and if that is how you're doing it...get a better flipper...
and aren't Foo breaking one of their own rules by demanding that I gave my pup to the account or face suspension...I thought that all pet trades were final and that Foo could not intervene
Deletelmao Love you Lainee!!
Delete"The "binding" agreement that I agreed to five years ago is nothing like the one that they have now."
DeleteI don't know what the agreement was five years ago, but usually terms agreements mention that they have the right to change the terms without notice and that your continued usage signifies your agreeance. I am not sure how well your statement would hold up in court, but you could try to make that case if you can present evidence that you are not under the current terms agreement.
"Of course we all have the right to terminate our accounts but how easy do you find it to walk away from something that you have spent years building up. Yes, they have the right to suspend and ban whoever they want but they also have a duty to provide a decent service to their members. The handling of the Pokey babies situation by the Admin has been wrong from start to finish."
I can understand and sympathize with you on not being willing to terminate your account, but I have to disagree with your opinion on how they are handling the situation. Unless I am missing something, I understand that they have asked for the Pokeys back and suspended those who refused. That sounds reasonable to me. What have they done that was unreasonable?
"What the heck are you even talking about? It's a plug-in dude. You go to Tools > URL Flipper > Increment/Decrement URL and hit okay. There are no buttons, you just click on your browser's toolbar, are we even talking about the same thing lol?"
DeleteThe one I have appears to be called "URL Flipper" and it is a plug-in. It provides the keyboard short-cut in the menu.
"Um, well considering I don't have a BP, no they don't have that right lol."
If you hacked the site to obtain a "BP" then yes, they would have the right. If you didn't, then no, they would not, unless you broke another rule instead.
"they took a dog named "Pokey" that was a Foo dog and then suspended the user for getting upset about it."
I would be interested in knowing specifically what happened in this case.
Why would I want to go to court and did you not read the part where I said that Foo had a duty to provide a decent service to their members. Also, you seemed to have missed where I said that Foo had broken their own rules.
DeleteI too would like to know who I am speaking to.
"and aren't Foo breaking one of their own rules by demanding that I gave my pup to the account or face suspension...I thought that all pet trades were final and that Foo could not intervene"
DeleteIs that what they did - demand that YOU specifically give your pet back? Like I said, I would recommend taking it up calmly with Traci in Support. Explain what happened, give her a screenshot of your ledger, see what she says or what solution she offers you. That, in my opinion, is the best course of action.
"did you not read the part where I said that Foo had a duty to provide a decent service to their members. Also, you seemed to have missed where I said that Foo had broken their own rules."
DeleteI just read the terms agreement. I did not see where they said they were obligated to "provide decent service to their members." I also did not see a rule about them not being allowed to intervene with a user's sale.
You really need to step away from the "terms" for a bit.
DeleteI never said that it was in the terms that Foo had to provide a decent service to their members, I just thought that such a thing would not need to be there. So are you saying that because it is not in the terms, then they do not need to offer a decent service..
providing a decent service to their members may not be in the ToS...however not doing so would be the reason I'd wager why they are no longer accredited with the BBB and now only have a C rating...
DeleteTHAT speaks volumes to me...
The debate here is about what is right and what is wrong. Some of us believe that it is okay to cheat and that the unauthorized pet they obtained through a URL hack should not be taken away or they should be entitled to a refund. I disagree with that perspective. How can we prove who is right and who is wrong? Well, the terms agreement supersedes what anyone's opinion is since this matter is directly related to FooPets. So I am citing the terms. If all of you are members of FooPets, I don't know how you can disagree with the terms since you are required to agree with them if you use the site.
Delete"So are you saying that because it is not in the terms, then they do not need to offer a decent service.."
What would you consider "decent service"? If you are considering the fact that the baby Pokeys were requested to be given back because the terms had to be breached in order to obtain them NOT decent service, then let me remind you that the consequences outlined in the terms specifically state that the result of breaking the rules may be suspension or termination of your account. They aren't suspending or terminating accounts of those who have voluntarily given their Pokeys back.
If you are saying that you did not receive "decent service" because you spoke out in the forums in regards to the Pokey you bought in good faith, then I think you should address that in Support because that is where they handle customer service.
"providing a decent service to their members may not be in the ToS...however not doing so would be the reason I'd wager why they are no longer accredited with the BBB and now only have a C rating..."
The service quality they provide to you is at their sole discretion. If you don't like it, you don't have to do business with them. It is unfortunate that a business has to conform to the "customer is always right" attitude to a point where it has to risk its reputation just to protect itself. A customer going out of her way, when she was in the wrong, to try to ruin Startapult, Inc.'s (doing business as FooPets.com) reputation as a company reflects poorly on her, but sadly, the company will pay.
If any of you actually LIKE FooPets or paid them a lot of money over time, why are you trying to drive them into the ground? Why are you trying to cheat in their game? Why do you oppose them and/or riot, complain, or attack them in their forums? Why, if you agreed to the terms of use, do you break the rules and then attack them on blogs like this? It does not make sense to me.
I am enjoying this debate with you but may I please ask you to do me the courtesy of not using capital letters to emphasis a point. You may not see it this way but to me it does appear quite rude.
DeleteAgain you are using the word cheat and to be honest, it does not appear to me that the majority of the users that obtained the pets considered what they were doing as cheating. I believe that it has been stated before that one Fa was at first congratulating members on obtaining the pets and another did not seem to think that it was a problem. What should have been done as soon as they had doubts about the pets, was that they made an official announcement and, once the harassment of members that already had the pets had started, they should have warned about such behaviour. To me, that would have been a decent service.
I apologize if I came off as rude when I used capital letters to emphasize certain words. I used them in place of text formatting, which does not seem to be an option here. But yes, this is quite an interesting debate if I do say so myself.
DeleteI can certainly agree that after seeing PL's response to the user who did the exploit at first that most of the people who did this did not believe they were "cheating," but technically, exploiting the site is a form of cheating. This is why I feel Foo is doing a nice thing by asking for the Pokeys back instead of outright suspending or terminating accounts. I think PL was wrong to congratulate the person who first did this because she is in a position of authority and should not be encouraging people to break the rules. She may have risked her job doing that, but regardless, rules are rules.
I do think that, especially in the wake of their announcement about their stance on bullying, they should be more on top of moderating the attacks in the forums and other social areas of the site.
Hey, no worries, sometimes I can be a bit sensitive when being replied to with capital letters. I will be honest and say that I do not think that you are Traci, you have come here and debated your point again and again. I have never known Traci to do that but if I did believe for one moment that she would actually listen and debate, I would have no hesitation in going to Support. My opinions of Traci are partly from what I have been told but also from what I have observed, her message to me was only further proof of what any dealings with her would be like, I'm still not getting where my first warning for inciting was.
DeleteI'm not bashing Foo, it is more that I am pleading with them to see sense and if I was allowed to do it on the web site, then I would. I am open about my opinions, which is one of the reasons that I do not like to go to Support, plus most issues that I have are to do with the site as a whole. Here as been just about the first place that I have been able to state my views without feeling that I could be breaking some new rule that may appear in the next few minutes. Yes Foo has the ToS, they also have the RoS, both of which they can change at any moment, plus the Fas do not seem to agree on what the rules are, some will say one thing and some will say another.
This debate does seem to have got a bit heated but there is a great deal of frustration that is not only to do with the Pokey babies. There are many other issues, that I would be happy to debate my version of them with you, if you would want to. You are right that the customer is not always right but then neither is the company, any government that is not a dictatorship will listen to the people in an open debate.
Anyway, back to the Pokey babies. I think that a good move for Foo to make would have been to release some Pokey babies for new accounts. I think that they would have been able to create quite a bit of extra revenue from members creating new accounts to get one of these pets.
(I posted this accidentally on the wrong thread so I'm re-posting it here, sorry.)
DeleteI would be open to debating with you, Lainee.
I think that a company like Foo should be more like a dictatorship, but open to feedback. The reason being is that ultimately, the heads of the company care the most about its well-being and have the most knowledge of its working parts. What they don't have, though, is an insight to their customers' opinions and desires. So being open to feedback is a very good thing. Not only is it helpful to the company, but the customers appreciate that their voices are being heard, too. I think that running the company like a democracy can get a bit hairy because many customers do not have the company's best interest at heart and will try to push it in the wrong direction.
I think in Foo's case, they see the open discussion as "inciting" because many people are quick to jump in and slam them, causing a huge scene. This forum is probably a good example. When I came here, there were a few people speculating about the way the site was exploited to get the baby Pokeys. They were kind of on the fence as to whether or not this exploit should be considered Foo's fault and if the people who did the exploit were "cheating". I hadn't even formed my opinion until I started responding and realized that based on the terms, it was cheating and although it was a preventable exploit, the bottom line was that the rules had been broken. Shortly after, I got slammed by multiple people who were directing personal insults at me, cussing, laughing at me... I was being bullied. All I did was disagree with their point of view and I gave supporting facts to back up my statements. I have to wonder if this would have taken place in the FooPets forums had they allowed open debate. It probably would seeing that these same people play FooPets. I think Foo has no choice but to suppress the users because many of them can't handle open debate. It is unfortunate because now even the respectful people who can handle debate cannot voice their opinion. It is a case of "a few bad apples ruining it for the bunch."
I think you're right about Foo being able to generate some more revenue by releasing Pokeys to new accounts. However, I am not sure how I feel about allowing the Pokeys that were created by exploiting to be kept by the people who exploited. Your case is different because you bought yours from someone else, but the ones who broke the rules... I don't know. Maybe Foo could decide to temporarily release Pokeys and give the surrendered Pokeys back to the people who came forward. For the ones who did not comply, though, I do not think they deserve to keep the Pokeys that they broke a rule to obtain.
I'm afraid that my reply is going to be quick as I have to go to work soon.
DeleteI believe that Foo is already a dictatorship that isn't open to opinion. In a way I do understand why they do not want open discussions about what is wrong with the site, because if members were allowed to post what the issues that they had were in the open forum. A full blown riot and rebellion would most likely ensue, due to many members frustrations and pent up resentment due to what appears to be the mishandling of many issues. Unfortunately, you did get hit in the cross fire of that yourself but many that has posted here have been bullied and harassed by the administration that you appear to be defending. I know that would not be an excuse but hopefully you can see the reasoning behind such behaviour.
I did finally venture into Support yesterday because I saw a post in the forum that made a personal attack on a reputable long standing member, which not only appeared calculated but also appeared to be supported by an Fa basically bumping the thread and then locking it. I'm not expecting anything to be done about this as the person is a favourite of many of the Fas and her and people that she is closely associated with have escape with hardly any punishment previously, when others drawn into their web have not.
I may appear to be digressing but I do think that there is much more in this whole discussion that is to do with the site in general and how it is being handled. There are at least two former Fas posting here, that do understand something of how the site is run and what works and what doesn't work.
As for the pups being kept by those that appeared to be exploiting a mistake by Foo, as I said before, if they Fas hadn't congratulated etc, then maybe it wouldn't have been done. At the time of them creating the accounts, at least two of the Fas seemed to be okay with it. If they hadn't, then many of the accounts would not have been created. So I do think that Foo should take responsibility and allow the pups to be kept by those that created them.
Again, I'm sorry if this is rushed or garbled but at the moment, I am rushed and garbled lol
I can see the reasoning behind the behavior here. I don't appreciate it, but I can see the reasoning. I suppose in some instances, I have been defending the administration. It's because I believe it is fair to treat a person with respect and understanding until that person shows me that they don't deserve it. I try not to hate or dislike anyone until they give me a valid reason to, and even then, I generally don't hate people. I have heard horror stories about Traci, but I have never had an issue with her. It's hard for me to decide if I think she is a good person or a bad person based on what I hear from disgruntled members. If they are disgruntled, they are probably not portraying her in the best light, and that just isn't fair. Why not let Traci have a chance with people? Why should disgruntled members go around and slander her name all over the Internet just because they're mad? (I have not seen her doing that to the members....) This is probably why Foo doesn't want people sharing their Support Tickets. Because when people do that, they are doing it with the intentions to inspire bad feeling. That is toxic in a community like FooPets. Even you admitted that your feelings for Traci were partially formed before you had even dealt with her first hand. Though, I must say, my first impression would have been marred a little if she had told me I was being warned for a second time, too, but I would probably figure that it must have been a mistake.
Delete"I did finally venture into Support yesterday because I saw a post in the forum that made a personal attack on a reputable long standing member, which not only appeared calculated but also appeared to be supported by an Fa basically bumping the thread and then locking it."
What do you think Traci should do about this incident?
I did recognize the two former FAs here. I did not expect to see one here, although I still have a high amount of respect for one.
"if they Fas hadn't congratulated etc, then maybe it wouldn't have been done."
I can agree with this perspective, as it makes sense, but I try to see both sides of the story. From the site's perspective, the rules were broken and data was extracted from the database by tampering with a variable in a URL and then inserting it as a new Pokey pet due to the usage of the lowest form of security a database-driven site could use. Maybe Foo should have done something to prevent this exploit years ago, but they probably didn't think they would see the day when one of their paying members would attempt to do this hack and then their FAs would convince others to follow suite. The FAs should know the terms of use, but are they expected to understand how the site is coded and how it functions? I highly doubt it, considering that a user had them convinced that it was cool to use the front page to obtain Pokeys through an exploit. Did anybody get a bad feeling when they did this exploit? Did anybody wonder why, if it was really okay to do, wasn't there an animated Pokey woofing on the adoption page when they did it? I have a hard time believing that anyone who did that exploit truly did it with 100% innocence because I think that in the back of everyone's mind, they were going, I hope I don't get in trouble for this.... But if these people thought that they could blame their actions on the actions of the FAs, they are going to find out, as they have been, that they can't because of what the terms say. Regardless, people should have listened to their conscience instead of the FAs, who clearly didn't know better.
Can we compare this to the male calico glitch? Wasn't that done by choosing the calico and making the gender a male through the interface?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletewe've even had Ron here, and other A's and a's past and present, from time to time...the Foop is a FooPets institution of sorts, even if (by the site's choice, not mine) there is no formal or actual affiliation.
DeleteTo the best of my knowledge (anyone who got one is welcome to correct me), the male calicos happened because no other cat breed required special coding to restrict gender, and a group were adopted before the code could be amended. As it was wholly - and in that case unquestionably - a goof on the site's part (and because other than creating another "rare glitch pet" they have no real impact on site pet populations or function), it was allowed to stand.
Ambs can only congratulate - or condemn - faits accompli. That input came after the adoptions, not before. Did their existence encourage other attempts? Perhaps...but I rather expect that anyone who learned it was possible and decided to try for one would have done it whether there were favorable comments or not.
I have been given the understanding that Admin was aware of the situation almost immediately - well, they could hardly miss it, I'm sure threads were flying faster than the Flash's shuttle - and for unknown reasons did not post at all until they formed a policy.
This was a tragic error, and the REAL point that this debate should be turning on, not how it was done (and I'm willing to bet there are actually several possible ways, and no way to tell which was employed in any given case), not who said what about it in the interim, not whether or not any of those who succeeded in adopting one knew they shouldn't or not.
A "wait until we can look into this!" announcement needed to be made IMMEDIATELY indicating that the site had reservations about what was going on - and wasn't. No formal statement from the site meant tacit approval, with or without input from ambs.
Will these additional Pokeys do any damage to the site simply by existing?
Probably not.
Will allowing them to remain as Pokeys set a bad precedent?
Quite possibly.
Will changing them into their respective Foo breeds do any harm?
I don't see how - seeing as we know the coding for that exists, so that the "money's worth" issue is aborted - and those who adopted a pet as a new join are not "cheated"...which they will be under the present policy?
"Even you admitted that your feelings for Traci were partially formed before you had even dealt with her first hand. Though, I must say, my first impression would have been marred a little if she had told me I was being warned for a second time, too, but I would probably figure that it must have been a mistake."
DeleteMy impression of her poor customer service was partially formed by watching and observing on the site and her message to me was the icing on the cake for me. I can understand how some subjects would need to be taken to Support and dealt with there. But I have noticed that she deals with every subject that way, even ones that affects the site as a whole. Even the announcements that are not locked, do not have constructive replies to them from Traci.
"What do you think Traci should do about this incident?"
Her job...to investigate it impartially and to deal with any offenses fairly and without favouritism.
"Regardless, people should have listened to their conscience instead of the FAs, who clearly didn't know better.
They should have known better though, they are the moderators of the site and are supposed to be aware of all of the rules. Anything that they are not sure of, they should advise not to be done until they can clarify the matter. The fact that it was the weekend should not have made any difference,It used to be that Kate could be contacted anytime, especially if a situation like the Pokey babies had arisen.
CanaansChild, the difference between the male calico episode and the baby Pokey exploit is this:
DeleteFooPets made the male calicoes accessible through the interface, which made them "authorized" pets. They had to take responsibility for that because the users did not breach the terms just by choosing a pet that was legitimately offered to them.
The baby Pokeys, however, were not accessible through the interface. The users had to get them by tampering with the variable in the URL. This is what made them "unauthorized" pets, and this is why Foo has the right to ask for them back or suspend/ban the people who refuse. (I still think Lainee may be an exception, though.)
Foo can choose to delete the baby Pokeys, Foo them, or let people keep them, but it is up to them to decide. Regardless of their decision, the people who exploited this were in violation of the terms agreement whether they think they were or not. Nothing an FA or even an admin can say supersedes the agreement because when you use the site, the agreement is what is binding, not what anybody says. (Of course if one of the admins says something, then you may want to listen to them because they can change the terms at any moment.)
"seeing as we know the coding for that exists, so that the "money's worth" issue is aborted - and those who adopted a pet as a new join are not "cheated"...which they will be under the present policy?"
To react to this, my question is, when you purchase ClubFoo, are you buying a pet?
"They should have known better though, they are the moderators of the site and are supposed to be aware of all of the rules. Anything that they are not sure of, they should advise not to be done until they can clarify the matter."
DeleteLainee, I agree that they should have known the rules, and that if they were unsure, they should have contacted the admins. But are they to blame if they were persuaded by a user who did the exploit and did not want to get into trouble for it? (By the way, I just want to clarify, who was the first user who did this?) Everyone here seems to think that just because they can type a number into a URL and go to a page, that means that what is queried and displayed on the page is content they are permitted to view, which is not true. I don't believe the FAs have any higher of an understanding of the way a site like that works than most of the users do. Someone could easily convince them that the baby Pokeys had to have been an option just by saying, "It's like shelter surfing," and therefore were legitimately offered by the site. If persuasion was used to make the FAs think this was okay, then I think that would make the person who reported the exploit even more guilty because it caused the page to be further exploited by other users.
Just a little note to say that if you don't notice...I just posted on the top comment...
ReplyDeleteAre you all ignorant or just plain so jealous of the fact some people got new pokeys that you'd ignore the truth?! THERE WAS NO HACKING GOING ON. THERE WAS NO CODE MANIPULATION. What took place was NO DIFFERENT than code SURFING FOR A PET. If Foopets has this in their TOS they would have to sue GOOGLE for their add on like "Next URL"....This is NO DIFFERENT than what happened with the male calicos. I sincerely believe that if it were CHILDREN and NOT specific adults that got the pokeys this wouldnt have been an issue. I and another NEW member have hired attorneys to look into the matter. Personally I am disgusted with Foo.
ReplyDeleteFooPets does not have the right to sue Google for Next URL, and if they tried it, they would fail. However, FooPets DOES have the right to suspend or terminate their own users' accounts for breaking their rules on their site. It doesn't matter if you don't think it was hacking, because whatever it was, the results were still that a user tampered with the data in the URL to obtain an unauthorized pet. They broke the rules. If a child did it, the child's legal guardian would be at fault for allowing it to happen.
DeleteAs a side note, there are many programs out there that were created with good intentions, but used by people maliciously. Take Windows Media Player, for example. Media Player allows people to rip CDs to MP3 files on their computers. I believe that music on CD is generally licensed for personal use, which would make it acceptable usage if a user were to rip the music and load it onto their personal MP3 player. BUT the moment that user takes the MP3 file and shares it with a friend, they are not complying with the license they bought when they obtained the CD and they can be prosecuted. Windows Media Player has not broken any license agreement in this case, so the music company would go after the user who DID breach the license, rather than the company who supplied the tool used in ripping the music.
Anon, whoever you are, YOU are the one mistaken. No TOS rules were broken. And NOTHING was done other than to change the pet ID number, Which EVERY SINGLE pet surfer HAD TO DO prior to googles "next URL" add on. Foo had NO PROBLEM with the URL being changed manually THEN. They shouldn't have an issue with it NOW. Also, I know Foo themselves released thousands of pokies back into the site to stimulate their economy. Far MORE "harmful" than the less than 70 this time arpund. Another point in fact....I KNOW A LADY that actually HACKED Foo codes and BRED pokies. She is going to give statement that NOTHING WAS DONE TO HER. Your bringing up the Windows Media player is just muddying up the waters and off subject. I KNOW that I have RIGHTS as a PAYING customer! I BOUGHT A PRODUCT, AS DID NEW MEMBERS. Ethics my dear. Look it up.
Delete"No TOS rules were broken."
DeleteI am not sure where you're getting that from, as I have quoted the terms and pointed out which parts of the agreement were breached. Also, it does state in the terms that "'cheat' or 'hack' programs that extract information or data from FooPets" - like a URL flipper - are not allowed. Foo can't really enforce it, though, without proof. This gives them proof, because they know that they did not authorize the users to adopt Pokeys on this page. If Foo did release thousands of Pokeys, then that was their choice. It is not the users' choice to release the Pokeys for Foo. Users do not have the right to dictate that. I would be interested to know who was able to hack Foo's code to breed Pokeys and how she got away with it.
I brought up the Windows Media Player example because I needed something to help me explain to you why your assertion about FooPets "needing to sue Google" was incorrect.
Of course you have rights as a paying customer and user of FooPets... your rights are outlined in the terms agreement you agree to every time you log in and continue to use their site. But to expand on that, is the subscription payment really buying you a pet or is it buying FooDollars, a special gift, a Litter License, and a time allotment to use the site?
You, yes you Anon, Traci, need to wake up. Foo is aware of people pet surfing the shelters. Proof my arse. Ppl nor only chat about surfing on their boards but also in open Forums. Speaking of which, I may have to start a discussion on Foo about it. You don't need to explain shit to me, I FULLY understand whats going on, its YOU, Traci, as always, that doesn't understand that compassion empathy get you a lot further with people. You are actually scaring me with your Hitler mentality.
DeletePlease allow me to inform you that I am not Traci, nor do I work for FooPets or represent FooPets. I am merely citing facts and an occasional opinion as part of this civilized debate. Thank you.
DeleteYou are citing parts of the ToS, mixed in with your personal opinion on the matter. There is a slight difference. I see in another post on here (I can't find it now) that you feel harassed or bullied here... Yes this is a debate and a rather heated one for some of us especially with every 5 seconds you recommending we go to Support. I have, many times, it rarely works out, and many times it only serves to stress me out as I get in trouble just for saying something. Apparently I need coached on how NOT to sound rude to Traci because she always think I am doing so. I have never lied to her, and when I tell her I don't mean something rudely, that's the truth. If I mean to be rude, people don't have to wonder, I just come right out with it. I've even told her twice now that I accidentally got double my CF+ bonus so she could correct it and take it back. Those two times, it was great, she was friendly and professional. At one point I even made a Support ticket just to try and work whatever out between us. I explained that I felt she found me sarcastic at times, and if I was trying to, I would admit it. Wrote something very heartfelt about was it possible for she and I to just try and start over as I was tired of being viewed as a trouble maker when I wasn't trying to make trouble. Tbh, I felt she was amused by this, but was trying not to show it. Now if I go to support to report something like getting CF twice, it is pleasant, and I don't fear it. But if I go to report someone for being rude (and me NOT responding to them) or breaking rules, etc, I always feel like I'm treading on thin ice. It sucks. I don't WANT it to be this way, if I knew a way to fix it, I would. It's not pleasant. It's especially unpleasant when I haven't broken any rules or when I am trying to be kind and I get treated poorly for it. As much as it sucks, it hurts. I am a person. I don't enjoy being treated like a piece of scum. :/ Idk. There's no way to explain this unless you've experienced it and apparently you haven't. If you keep backing the site publicly on their decisions, you probably won't ever experience it, and feel thankful for that. Maybe if I actually began to lie and post all the time about how great foo and everyone working for them was, I could get back to having pleasant support experiences. My problem with that is - I call it like I see it....
DeleteI apologize, I just woke up, and I got sidetracked from my original point. Which is to say, if you do feel like we're being rude and having huge reactions to what you say, it's only because you are acting like going to support fixes everything. It doesn't for some of us. You have the right to feel however you feel about foo, but so do we. You may feel bullied or harassed here, but we feel that way onsite and in Support most times and we actual pay to feel that way, I'd laugh if it wasn't so darned sad. I can't walk away from my pets. I keep trying to quit, but it doesn't work. I keep trying to fix things with the Admin, I say Traci in particular because she is the only Admin I get to speak with. Anyhow, nothing changes, nothing gets fixed, and I still hang out hoping someday it might get better but knowing that I'm wishing in one hand...Point is, please don't ask us to go to Support with our issues. And I mean that please with sincerity. To some of us, that's the worst possible place to go or be asked to go. It's not a cure all for all of us. I'm sure for some it is, maybe for you it has been, but for the rest of us, being asked to go there just brings up bad memories and bad feelings.
DeleteI feel bullied here because I posted my opinion and supporting facts and shortly after, was attacked by the people who disagreed with me. Some of these people made their opening statements swinging below the belt. I hadn't even mentioned Support when this began. I acted decently to everyone here. I never gave anyone a reason to be so rude to me. This does not amount to a "heated debate." There has been far too much brutality for it to be labelled as such.
Delete"I don't enjoy being treated like a piece of scum."
Me neither. Just because the people here feel they are mistreated on FooPets doesn't make it right for them to take their anger out on me, an anonymous person on a discussion board.
And I am not suggesting to go to Support to be inciting. I just figure that you're going to be talking to the same people anyway, so why does it need to be a public outcry? OBC was saying that she didn't have time to go to Support as if it was more efficient to address issues with the administration publicly, but I find that hard to believe because I am always seeing the admins telling people to go to Support. Might as well go there directly, right?
"And I am not suggesting to go to Support to be inciting."
DeleteTrying to figure out what you mean by this, are you implying I go there to be inciting? Because I generally go there to ask WHY I am being warned or punished, to report something like my double CF bonus, or to report people when they are doing something wrong, although I don't do so much of the latter anymore because it never seems to amount to much and sometimes I just get into trouble.
I am sorry if you feel like people are hitting below the belt, but to be fair, you are straight out calling some folks here cheaters, and that *does* tend to offend people, especially if you don't share their view. Some would also say that calling people cheaters is below the belt. I'm not attacking you here, I'm just bringing up a point.
"but I find that hard to believe because I am always seeing the admins telling people to go to Support"
Trust me, from experience, if an Admin invites you to Support, it's generally the last place you want to go lol. And sometimes bringing issues out publicly is not a bad thing. A lot of people feel like certain questions, questions whose answers would benefit not just the questioner but the site by publicly answering, shouldn't be confined to Support. Not our call on that obviously, but it makes it seems less sneaky.
I meant that I was not trying to upset you by suggesting going to Support.
DeleteIt is not that I feel like people are swinging below the belt.... People here are actually very clearly swinging below the belt. You yourself have even admitted that you were rude for something you said that you deleted, and there has been swearing - censored and uncensored - and insults flying around. I posted and then got told that I "don't know anything about coding" and that I am "ignorant" - right after the poster herself said she wasn't bothering to read everything I said. I responded and then I think the next thing she said was that she didn't even know much about coding. Somehow, because of that, she wasn't "hacking" when she tampered with a critical variable used in pet creation that she posted to the server, resulting in extracting the data of an inaccessible, unauthorized pet, which ultimately broke the rules that she had to check the box and agree to as she was in the act of performing the exploit that I believe is called a "URL hack." Based on what I just said, you be the judge: is she a "cheater"? I did not call her a cheater. I did say that this action I have described is cheating, but I did not call her a "cheater."
Thanks for clarifying that, I appreciate it. The wording sounded like what I thought, but I'm glad that's not what you meant. :)
DeleteI did delete the comment because I made it in haste and I felt it would only add to the negative feelings. I hope I deleted it in time so that no one read it and had feelings hurt.
Not at all being rude, but when you start using computer jargon like "variables" and stuff, you totally lose me. I said in another post, what I know about this kind of thing could maybe be a smidgen larger than the eye of a small sewing needle, so I'm not qualified to speak with any authority on the matter.
I thought you said directly at some point, "You broke the rules, you cheated..." something along those lines? If not then I'm sorry again. It's hard to keep up because this debate is scattered throughout replies. From what I do know about this, no, I don't believe this counts as a cheat, but I'm not an expert. shrugs
And I'm on my sleepy time meds about to head to bed, so if the above doesn't make sense, I may clarify tomorrow. I am not sure I'll be on, I have a calling hours to attend. Tbh, this blog has been effectively helping to keep my mind off of that for which I am grateful.
I just want to point out that I had one of the pups which I didn't create through a new account. I did buy it through a pet sale link actually on the site, after seeing that members had been congratulated on their pets by an Fa and learning of PLs relaxed attitude towards the situation. I did also point this out on the site the other day to defend myself, after there was yet another post saying that the owners of the Pokey babies were cheaters and still no Fa's posting about attacks on members. The thread was locked by Traci after I posted along with a message on my profile from Traci, telling me that it was me second warning about inciting. Firstly, I had no first warning, secondly, are I not allowed to defend myself now, even when the Fas will not.
ReplyDeleteThis was taken directly from the terms:
Delete"FooPets reserves the right to temporarily suspend or permanently terminate any account if the user engages in any of the following: [...] Attempt to use FooPets in a fraudulent manner, including but not limited to cheat codes, algorithms, multiple identify tactics, exploits or similar measures to gain, or attempt to gain unearned FooDollars, items, pets, or access to FooPets or information or images that have not officially been announced or made public properly by FooPets."
It says, "including but not limited to," so it is up in the air as to what more they can enforce, since you did technically obtain an unauthorized pet, BUT you did so via proper means since you did not have to tamper with the interface to buy the pet. Did you turn it in and did they offer you a refund? I would recommend taking it up with Support instead of posting about it in the forums because they don't take kindly to people making public issues about it, understandably. I think Traci would be more willing to listen to your claim if you take it up with her calmly in Support.
I had no choice but to turn the pet in.
DeleteThe reason that I made a "public issue" about it, is as I stated, once again someone had posted calling owners of the pets "cheats". I think that I have quite a good reputation on the site and I was not going to stand back and let it be sullied. Ever since there was doubt as to whether the Pokey babies were legit or not, there had been many posts attacking those that had the pets and not once did an Fa step in and stop it.
In the experience of many players, Traci is never willing to listen to any claim no matter how it is presented. The day she does will be the day Hell freezes over. Not to mention that most of the ambassadors are beginning to follow in her footsteps. They don't read thoroughly and then jump down players throats for their own failures at interpretation of things that are said. It is high time the entire staff be replaced before Foo is finally irretrievably destroyed.
Delete"I had no choice but to turn the pet in."
DeleteI think you should kindly explain to Traci in Support that you bought the pet with the understanding that it was okay and complied with their request to turn it in. I would also point out that you felt that other users were attacking you when you spoke out in the forum. If people were calling you out by name, then it could be considered slander and bullying. Traci should want to correct that behavior. But also, perhaps she could offer you something to replace the pet you gave back.
"there had been many posts attacking those that had the pets and not once did an Fa step in and stop it."
I would make this case in Support.
"In the experience of many players, Traci is never willing to listen to any claim no matter how it is presented. The day she does will be the day Hell freezes over. Not to mention that most of the ambassadors are beginning to follow in her footsteps. They don't read thoroughly and then jump down players throats for their own failures at interpretation of things that are said. It is high time the entire staff be replaced before Foo is finally irretrievably destroyed."
DeleteI would not make the assumption that Traci will never listen when spoken to politely, respectfully, and in a reasonable manner in Support. Like any of us, she won't respond well to abuse, and I often have to wonder, with all the "Traci-trashing" I see surrounding FooPets, if people who have bad experiences with her really treated her with the same respect they expected to be treated with in return.
Traci-trashing?? Just because someone speaks from experience of her being disrespectful before they reply in kind, does not make them trashing her. That makes them telling the truth. I've dome my best to be respectful towards her, even when she was being ignorant to me. I have not trashed her, even OBC has not trashed her, she is just not confident in her own experience with her and that of people she knows.
DeleteI find it funny that you're not brave enough to speak on your own behalf, but you're sure brave enough to defend someone who you don't have any clue as to the situations that people have come to that conclusion.
Lets take Kate for example, she wasn't always right, but she was respected and feared. Maybe a bit more feared than respected...however she dealt with things a hell of a lot different and members in support were allowed to speak their minds without fear of suspension. She also listened and didn't "can" responses...she was never condescending...or demeaning...
No I'm not a big supporter of her, but I'd take her any day over Traci...
Agree whole heartedly OBC
DeleteJust figured out how to do my name...I am anon that said that I had bought a pup on site.
ReplyDeletePlease do not read into my post anything other than for that which I said. I said what I mean and mean what I say. Many players have had bad experiences. While it is true that some players likely are not as polite as they should be, that is no excuse. The person representing the company must *always* take the high road and rise above the way ignorant players may behave. Especially if they are children. Even if they are adults though. Anything less is totally unprofessional.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone here wished to drive Startapult, Inc. dba FooPets out of business. We have all become quite attached to the site, proven by the fact that even though we are not thoroughly satisfied, we are still there and still paying for the ability to be. However, that doesn't mean we wouldn't like to see some things change. Now I am not saying give players back their BPs. I AM saying that everyone needs to be treated equally. Case in point-the BP fiasco. We were not allowed to say anything in the forums without being threatened by Admin. Other 'innocent' players were allowed to bash us in the forums something terrible. Never have I felt bullied and fearful on a web site before. I thought this would be verboten for everyone not just the ones who did nothing 'wrong'. We would like to be unimpartially listened to although we are adults and not children. I have been threatened over things that others said, not me, and if the person doing it had bothered to actually read she may have been aware. Mind you the child that was actually guilty had nothing said to her. Yes, I know that as she and I discussed it. We don't want to ruin the company but it doesn't mean there are not things that we feel should change for the benefit of said company.
ReplyDeleteHave you gone to Support with this claim?
DeleteOh pleeeeeease. Spare me. I don't have time for useless activities. I believe if I speak out there, whether in the forums or in Support I will be invited to sit in the time-out room for awhile. Going to support is an exercise in futility as many before me have proven. Other players did go to support saying they didn't like the bullying that was going on and their words seem to have fallen on deaf ears. No surprise.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to get anywhere with them, the most efficient thing to do would be to go straight to Support. Arguing your point here isn't having that heart-to-heart you may need to have with Traci. Posting in the forums isn't efficient, either, as I've heard that Traci doesn't go there as much as she goes in Support. Foo is always telling people to go to Support. Why not try going to Support?
DeleteDon't think you have read what I have already stated. I do NOT go to Support as it is a waste of my time and energy. I have already seen first hand how little gets solved in Support. No thank you, I am not into masochism.
DeleteDo you think posting publicly gets more solved more efficiently than going to Support? It just seems apparent to me that when people make their issues public, it usually results in them being told to go to Support and then they get into trouble for making a scene.
DeleteI can't believe you are trying to shut us up even off the Foo wesite.
DeleteI am not sure what you mean by this. I am not here to "shut you up." As I have previously stated, I am here to participate in this debate, nothing more. I am in no way connected to Traci, FooPets, nor do I represent them. If you don't want to accept that, then fine, but calling me Traci, as you have before, is not going to make your accusation a true fact.
DeleteWhats not to understand? You have heard from each of us how we are treated in support yet you keep insisting we go there instead of here, a public forum, to voice our grievances. Exactly what an FA or Traci would say. You sound exactly like them You give stock answers and you never give a straight answer or offer resolution. Lol
DeleteThe resolution I offered was to go to Support to solve your problems with the Foo administration. They are always telling people to do that. What does it take to make people listen? I don't think that rallying in the forums to riot is going to fix your problems, but instead make them worse.
DeleteWhen we do listen and go there, the people you are now speaking to, we get treated like crap. So what does it take to make YOU listen. We have tried support, have gone when we're told, and all that happens is we are condescended to, patronized, yelled out, or in general, bullied. If you don't like feeling bullied here for your thoughts which you seem to think you are expressing quite nicely, then why are you telling us to go to a place where we feel we act very nice and get bullied ourselves? Just because you haven't experienced it, doesn't mean it's not happening. And they changed part of the RoC to say now that people can be banned for sharing their support tickets, supposedly for the player's own good. Well guess what? I can decide what's good or bad for me, and I know that sharing my experiences so people don't think I'm a liar, would be great for me. The real reason we can't share is because they don't want us proven right.
DeleteI love how Traci called a customer up on the phone, while said customer was on vacation with her family, and literally YELLED at said customer over something the customer could not have had anything to do with because um.....the customer was ON VACATION with her family!
ReplyDeleteAnd yet she wants people to treat her kindly and with respect? You get what you give.
FACTUAL INFORTMATION
DeleteOkay, with what proof because I have a hard time believing that. Why would Traci go out of her way to call a person on vacation to yell at them when she has to be in Support reading screenshots all day?
DeleteWhy don't you ask TRACI. I'd love to hear her response on this one.
DeleteI shouldn't have to ask Traci since you already know that this is "factual information" and you must have evidence to support your claim. When I see the evidence, I may believe you.
DeleteFirst off all, I don't think any of us give a flying fig if you believe her. Second all you need to do is read all the posts to know who Traci called, if I'm not mistaken.
DeleteAlso, I personally know about this situation because after it happened I called Traci myself and talked with her. The talk was about many things but included her call to said member and how unprofessional it was. She admitted to me that she could have handled that better. She also knew this member went on holiday because they were talking in support before and she wishes her a good time. The situation itself was an oversight on the members part they were distracted with real life and made a simple mistake. Traci blew it way out with a rude message on her wall, a threat to fix it in something like 24-48 hours...and instead of waiting to see if she would see the wall threat and comply...less than an hour later she called her screaming at her. Her family sat there wondering what the hell was going on. The member was beyond embarrassed, she was mortified...
THAT is not good customer service, she could have asked her to please go to support then ask if she could call. Just because she had the members number due to a previous situation did not give her the right to call her without having her permission to do so.
One of the biggest reasons people don't trust support is because as soon as they go there, and are bullied into either submission or gag order. They can't talk to anyone or share their horrible experiences without risk of suspension. You're delusional if you think that going to support solves anything.
I find it amusing, the non-foo employee is telling us how wonderfully understanding and awesome Traci is and keep pushing us to go to Support. Right, there's a great idea. I don't get irate generally until something happens to merit it (speaking of my support stuff). And even so, I generally say "Please" and "Thank you" and all that good stuff. I also take time and use as many SS's as possible to explain my situation in full. What do I get for my time? Well let's see, most recently, I shared SS's of an altercation that happened between myself and another player, and I explained that this was a past occurrence, in fact, there was proof that my SS's were from over 90 days ago at that point, proof in my messages and my gift messages. I was suspended for sharing those SS's (in Support) because Traci misunderstood and thought it was a recent thing even though I told her that it was past and PL had handled it. I told her to ask PL, I gave her the page number for the messages and the separate gift page number (I spent about 3 hours searching these out) only to be told that she *might* have been mistaken, but she didn't think so. So I got a week long social suspension for "bullying". This is not the first time that I feel like Support has skim read my tickets and jumped to conclusions, and it's not the only time I've gotten in trouble for something I didn't even do.
ReplyDeleteNow, I do get I'm longwinded, but I don't care how long my reports are, I pay them, they should read it all, not skim, and not make assumptions based on their opinion of me. So yeah, Support is one of those areas where it's like beating my head against a brick wall. Last time I got a warning for inciting (I mean before the most recent, Lainee - seems like your first warning got lost in the mail as well) I asked Traci to tell me specifically what I said that was inciting (because I actually had tried in my post to be nice, not rude and I wanted to make sure I didn't do whatever it was again), not only could she not explain to me which words she found to be inciting or why, but she instead posted a c/p of the definition of "Incite", just condescending. *shrugs* Is what it is, but for some of us, Support is not an option since apparently if they dislike you, not only will they not help, they actually can make you feel badly for asking. I have actually requested PL though because I must say she at least reads my words in the intention that I write them.
"the non-foo employee is telling us how wonderfully understanding and awesome Traci is and keep pushing us to go to Support."
DeleteI don't think I've said that Traci was "understanding and awesome," and she has never given me a reason to think that about her or the opposite. Foo is always telling people to go to Support with their claims. They probably feel like their efforts to get the users to actually go to Support is like beating their own heads against brick walls. Maybe try going to Support before you have a major altercation with people in the forums and other social areas of the site? Maybe your claims would be less "longwinded" then?
Who cares how long winded a persons rants, complaints, or MORE importantly their opinions are. Swear to Christ, I feel like Foo has made me into a traitor just because I think for myself. Inciting the people....well in history ppl have been HUNG for that. Does anyone else feel this way?
DeleteWell, apparently the people who work in Support care, as they are expected to read all that. And it seems as though they often confuse the details and then they make mistakes with how they handle people, causing the people to get upset and feel that they were treated unfairly.
DeleteAs I said. God, I really think this IS Traci LOL, because you read about as much as she does of what I write. The altercation was over 90 days old. The whole bullying rule was posted right before I was suspended. So I was punished retroactively even though it had already been handled by PL. I was "longwinded" because I was explaining the past situation in detail to avoid confusion over just that matter. I didn't report it for me, I didn't report someone for OUR altercation over 90 days after the fact. That would be ridiculous. I reported it because I was reporting an issue this same player had with someone else, her complete disregard for rules, and I showed the old SS's of MY personal experience to simply show this wasn't the first time said player had done this. And again, no matter how longwinded I may be, she should still read it all and if there's a part she finds confusing, all she needs to do is ask me for clarification. I don't mind answering a million questions if it gets us to a point where we understand each other.
DeleteIf the screenshots you provided had nothing to do with the incident at hand, and furthermore, had nothing to do with you, then I don't think they are valid evidence in the issue at hand. I think each case should be handled as an isolated incident and not be made into an opportunity to compound the problem by bringing up old issues that were previously handled. It would not be fair for the admins to base judgement for the current issue on issues in the past. Each case is unique, regardless of who is involved, and I think they need to be evaluated as such.
DeleteI am not Traci, nor do I represent her or FooPets.
Okay, so then Traci could have said that she couldn't accept the SS's since they were from the past. If that's the case, there's no way I can argue with that, and I would have dropped the matter. Instead, I got suspended for something that had already happened, that I had proof that had already happened, and that PL had already handled. I should not have been punished simply for sharing SS's that were old. I was punished for those SS's under the "bullying" flag, as was the person in those SS's that I had the altercation with, and if she was only suspended for my SS's, then THAT is not right either because she shouldn't have been punished 90+ days after the fact for a NEW rule. That's not fair to anyone. I'm sure that Traci misunderstood, although I said it had happened prior, the SS's obviously had time stamps that supported when I took them which is when the actual altercation happened. So it would be confusing to be told that it's an old story when a SS says "Message sent: One day ago". Which is why I went back and spent that 3 hours digging for those messages, and I apologized to Traci and said next time I would not crop them to be more easily readable, but would keep an original with the time and date stamp. But after finding the messages, I RE- screen shotted them, and it did say a time and date stamp on those as well as saying they were 91 days old. Then I told her which page in my messages and my gift messages that she could view these so she would understand I wasn't lying. I can't make it any more clear, I was punished for the messages in the SS's, as was the person I fought with, over 90 days after this argument took place. This girl and I had no further contact after that. She blocked me, and I was relieved, and she has never removed that block to talk to me, which again, I am relieved. I would prefer we don't have contact, however, we should have a reasonable expectation to not be punished for a new rule. Otherwise, I have a very lot of people I have SS's of who have been bullying since Ron took the site back over. If it's retroactive for me, it should follow it is that way for all.
Delete"Lainee - seems like your first warning got lost in the mail as well"
ReplyDeleteIndeed it must have.
I would also like to point out that "this is your second warning for inciting" made me feel like I was being bullied by Traci. Personally, I think that just "if you feel like you need to discuss the situation, I would be happy to in Support". would have been better.
Though after hearing about some of the problems encountered there, I am not sure that I ever want to go to Support
"if you feel like you need to discuss the situation, I would be happy to in Support"
DeleteI agree, that sounds much better. She should say that so the users don't feel bullied. It is a shame that so many users feel they can't go to Support when they need customer service. But who is scaring them away from Support? Is it the things Traci does or the horror stories the users spread around about their experiences in Support when they get reprimanded for doing something they felt was not wrong?
Lol! Anon....Seriously. Who ARE you? "Support" should be and is called "the quiet room" for its SELF DESERVED reputation. God damn I honestly cant believe it. You MUST WORK for Foo...where its ALWAYS the CUSTOMERS fault. Foo doesn't want their customers having an opinion. Wake up.
DeleteBoth. I have seen it first handed and I have seen and heard other stories. Some things I have heard I take with a grain of salt, but, some, too many, are accurate and horrendous. I think the absolute worst demeaning, embarrassing and unprofessional act thus far was the phone call Traci placed to a customer. She screamed and accused a paying customer of doing things that the player had not done. In no way was this appropriate. Especially as it was not true. No, it doesn't make me think I will be treated well, fairly or kindly. I do not feel safe being open with Traci. I do not trust her. I wish I did.
DeleteOBC - Couldn't have said it better myself.
DeleteHow do you know Traci called a customer at their home and screamed at them for something they did not do? That does not sound like behavior I would expect from a FooPets administrator.
DeleteAnon. No way, really? Very unprofessional isn't it. Nothing new in Foo.
DeleteBecause I KNOW. Period.
DeleteAnon...Seeing as you keep wondering (in different places)...I'm reposting this from a post a bit higher up...
DeleteFirst off all, I don't think any of us give a flying fig if you believe her. Second all you need to do is read all the posts to know who Traci called, if I'm not mistaken.
Also, I personally know about this situation because after it happened I called Traci myself and talked with her. The talk was about many things but included her call to said member and how unprofessional it was. She admitted to me that she could have handled that better. She also knew this member went on holiday because they were talking in support before and she wishes her a good time. The situation itself was an oversight on the members part they were distracted with real life and made a simple mistake. Traci blew it way out with a rude message on her wall, a threat to fix it in something like 24-48 hours...and instead of waiting to see if she would see the wall threat and comply...less than an hour later she called her screaming at her. Her family sat there wondering what the hell was going on. The member was beyond embarrassed, she was mortified...
THAT is not good customer service, she could have asked her to please go to support then ask if she could call. Just because she had the members number due to a previous situation did not give her the right to call her without having her permission to do so.
One of the biggest reasons people don't trust support is because as soon as they go there, and are bullied into either submission or gag order. They can't talk to anyone or share their horrible experiences without risk of suspension. You're delusional if you think that going to support solves anything.
"Quiet room" no Foosister, we call it the room "where no one can hear you scream"....
Delete- Kizzee (posted as anonymous...because eh, I didn't want to fiddle with making a whole name thingy thing thing...lol)
"That does not sound like behavior I would expect from a FooPets administrator" I never expected such behaviour from any admin, let alone company specific, but nope, Traci has all but proven my thoughts about the site as true...it is a power trip for all the admins &"a's".
After seeing the behavior in this forum, I don't know how Traci manages some of the FooPets users. I have been shocked by nearly every response. There have been very few people here who haven't said something personally insulting, slanderous, or with the intent to bully. Most of these comments come from people trying to convince me that they did not break a rule when they hacked a URL on FooPets to obtain a pet they were not supposed to have, and that they are entitled to keep the unauthorized pet. Is this how you treat Traci in Support? Or do you find it harder to argue with her without the support of other users?
DeleteSomehow, I find it very hard to believe that the users are on the receiving end of the alleged bullying. All I have done here is presented facts to support my claims and offered some of my opinions. The response I got very soon after was shear rudeness and vicious personal attacks, and if you notice, I have not been treating you the same way. I have had people here calling me ignorant, accusing me of being somebody I have repeatedly said that I am not, I have been laughed at, discounted, belittled, cussed at.... Gee, after all of the abuse I have endured here, I would not want to associate my name with most of the names on this board. I do not feel that this is a very respectful group and I have a very hard time taking some of the content here on this comment board seriously.
This debate has been very intriguing. So far, nobody has been able to prove that FooPets is being unreasonable in asking for the baby Pokeys back. Lainee has been the only person here who actually has a valid argument against FooPets for taking back the Pokeys, because she didn't have to hack in order to obtain hers.
I personally have nothing to "prove" to you, why would I give you my "proof"? Lol! I have no idea who you are. I'm thinking Traci. Plus your very shady when you say you don't work for Foo. I believe your just trying to stir up trouble. You have been very inciteful and leading in your questions like we should all tell you anything. Let me know when you want to get real.
DeleteI need to get screenies of my support tickets apparently. Maybe if it was right here in black and white people would stop denying that some of us try, try very hard and get nothing but heartache from it.
DeleteIt galls me to say so, but I have gotten so worked up at least three times in the past, by being misunderstood and hounded in Support, even when I'm just asking a question, that I have been reduced to tears. It's frustrating beyond measure, and upsetting as hell to have someone *constantly* misunderstand you, your words, your intentions. But for some dumb reason, idiot me, I keep going to Support and expecting one day to have a different response.
Indeed there has been a few times where Traci actually said something that made me smile or laugh, not AT her, but with her, and I think it is those few times that keep me hoping that it's not all bad. Sometimes I want more than anything to just like her. But then, inevitably, something goes wrong and I again am treated like either the villain or the village idiot.
Since Support is such a joke on FooPets we can and will continue to hash out our issues in forums such as this. It is my sincere hope that at some point in the future Administration will realize their errors and make some positive changes. Until that day, I will not use Support any more than absolutely necessary. Maybe instead of suggesting that we all go to Support with every thing, YOU need to go there Anon and tell them what we have to say. I am positive you will be welcomed with open arms.
ReplyDeleteOBC - Reading my mind again.
DeleteWhy should I go to Support to tell them what your problems are? They aren't my problems. Why would they take it from me and not from the people who actually have a bone to pick with them? If I did take your problems to Support, most likely, they would tell me to tell you to come to Support to discuss your problems. I think the most efficient approach would be for each person with a problem to go directly to Support and have it taken care of.
DeleteI am still curious to know if posting publicly gets you farther than going to Support with your issues.
Anon, she was being sardonic...as in go ahead and try, you will get the same treatment many others have.
DeleteYou know, I am very tempted to go to Support and see for myself just how badly people are treated there. I don't believe I would be treated badly if I went there and was respectful and reasonable.
DeleteI have entered the dragons den myself today. Not on this issue but another one that is wrong on so many levels. I am not expecting anything favourable to come out of it though....unfortunately
DeleteWell this is going to come off sounding rude, and I'm not sure, again how to say it without it sounding rude...
DeleteMany people I'm sure have lovely service in Support, I wouldn't know as I am not one, but it does seem to me that the site in general, favors a select few, and that those few favor the site in return, going to each announcement or post that has a mod or Admin talking and telling them how wonderful they are, how great the site is, how they are just awesome, wonderful, make all the right decisions type of people. There's a word for this, and I am not going to use it because it is very rude. But those people can (and have) broken rules from the ToS and the RoC and they get a smile and a pat on the head.
I have always said, I will not praise if I feel something is wrong. I do give praise when I feel something is right. I even said when the announcement of what they would do about the BPs dropped, that I was relieved to see that people weren't going to be banned outright as they did with the gifting glitch. But meh. If, Anon, you do ever go to Support, I'm sure you'll see nothing but sweetness and kindness because you are backing the site and every decision they make. Try going when you disagree with something, you'll receive a far different reaction.
I know people go to Support and swear at and call Traci names, I don't do that. I do try to be polite, but it seems like every time I am being sincere, it is read as sarcasm. If someone is just going to read what they want to read into my posts or tickets, then what's the point?
"If, Anon, you do ever go to Support, I'm sure you'll see nothing but sweetness and kindness because you are backing the site and every decision they make. Try going when you disagree with something, you'll receive a far different reaction."
DeleteI am not backing the site on every decision they make. I came here to state my opinion and supporting facts thinking I was going to be participating in a civilized debate. I have not agreed with Foo on everything I have talked about here. The one thing that I have focused on the most was the terms of use, which I cannot argue with regardless of what I think. Because if you disagree with or breach the terms of use, you're out of the site. So I have used the terms as supporting evidence when making my case. Support has been a secondary issue I have focused on, though I am much less concerned about it. When I suggest that people go to Support, I am basing that on what the admins always say to people. No one has yet to convince me that it is more efficient not to go to Support. When I ask questions to people making claims, they go unanswered.
"I know people go to Support and swear at and call Traci names"
If you are wondering why people don't get very far when dealing with Traci, perhaps this is why? Someone in a customer service role is not going to reciprocate to behavior like this. They won't swear or call customers names. They can't even if they wanted to. What happens instead is they lose a lot of respect for their attacker. They will do their job, but they generally won't go out of their way to be extra kind to the customer who hurt them. Because someone in a customer service role goes home at night and is a real person, just like the rest of us. There is no reason to resort to swearing and name-calling when you are talking with someone. It is absolutely unnecessary and it is hurtful and disappointing.
The admins are always telling people to go to Support because that is where they handle customer service. They have to do it there. It's like a service desk - that's just the way it goes. If a customer went to a store and tried to solve their problem on the intercom, they will ask the customer to kindly be directed to the customer service desk. Understanding. When the admins tell you to go to Support, with some of you, I am sure they cringe and brace themselves for the worst because they know that no matter what, some customers will not accept what they are told in response to an issue. In my opinion, if a user is swearing and name-calling when speaking to customer service, they shouldn't be so privileged to use the site and shouldn't expect people to think very highly of them either.
"I am not backing the site on every decision they make. I came here to state my opinion and supporting facts"
DeleteMy apologies, you are correct, I cannot know if you back them in everything because I don't know who you are. I meant specifically for this, the BP thing, but the way I worded it misrepresented you. It is frustrating though, to be told that because Traci may have bad experience with others, I should expect it as well. If other people swear and call her names, it's not my fault. I don't therefore, I should not be treated as such. I try to be as polite as I can, even when I am upset. Actually, the more upset I am, the more I tend to try to explain to her how I feel, and I tend to become more sincere and even more polite, not less so.
"They have to do it there."
Not so with everything. If 90% of people on the site don't understand a rule, and one person decides to ask about it in USS, instead of saying "Go to Support", wouldn't it be more productive to make a closed (as in locked) Announcement to clarify as opposed to responding with canned responses to everyone who asks? First of all, if it was something like that and everyone actually did go to Support to ask, it would take possibly days to respond to each query when they are all the same. For personal matters, that is different, however, some of us have gone there bright and happy, and trying to do a good thing, with the expectation of, at the very least, a polite response, and have gotten a much different response.
Can I understand being frustrated in general if you're being sweared at and name called by so many people as I am sure many do? Yes, 100%. It's not the proper way to approach an Admin, I agree. However, if you are one of the polite people that just happen to catch Admin on a bad day and they take it out on you, then don't your feelings matter? I feel like Traci in particular really does not like me, and for the longest time, I tried to go out of my way to be MORE friendly because I don't like being treated that way, and I thought if I was friendly, I would be more apt to get a friendly response. But instead of that, I tend to come off as sarcastic. It's very frustrating, to try so hard and get more attitude because someone reads your words wrong. It's hurtful and it's depressing.
"I meant specifically for this, the BP thing"
DeleteYes, that is what I was referring to, as well.
You are right in saying that Traci shouldn't be taking her anger out on you, specifically, if you did not treat her badly. It is the same as me catching many of the posters on this board on a bad day and getting slammed because I disagreed. I don't know that Traci doesn't have a reason to be at all upset with you. Do you treat her with respect? If you take on a more polite approach the more upset you get, could it be coming off to her as "fake"? Whether it is or it isn't, she may sense that you grow impatient with her and may be reading it as having an attitude. If you don't always sound sarcastic, then why not try acting like your normal self throughout your Support Ticket? Perhaps then you would come off as more sincere?
When she gets me to the total point of frustration, me saying I become more sincere is not me not being myself. In fact, it's probably a character flaw, but I may be stubborn, I can be rude, I can be many negative things, but I also want people to be fair with me and yes, even to like me. So usually the more upset I get, the more vulnerable I get and when vulnerable, I tend to be....sighs, oh I don't know, a big wuss. I'll tell people things about myself or my feelings and how they were affected by things they said. In short, trying to be anyhow, I have opened up my heart in front of Traci. She may read my frustration when I first get down there, I can be pretty transparent. But the longer a support "battle" goes on - will explain an example of this in a sec - the more tired of conflict I get and the more apt I am to want to resolve it even by completely giving up on what is fair or right, I have even, much as it might make me seem weak, begged her to just explain to me where I went wrong.
DeleteMy example of a battle is this - I was told I was being inciting during the gifting glitch. It was my second warning. My first, apparent warning, was in a support ticket, she put as a P.S. that she was surprised as she had expected to see my usual positivity in the forums. So I first fought and said that wasn't a warning, I didn't take it as one. But I gave that up. Until I went and asked a question in USS. My topic was deleted and I was warned that I was being incited again. This question had to do with the ledger glitch. It had been talked about for at least 20+ pages in the Breeding Forum, and Traci had even posted there, but she had said nothing about people not discussing it and indeed people posted after it. So I had a few questions and at the time, I was still used to Rivet Admin hanging out in USS and even answering questions. I tried to phrase it in a way that it wouldn't seem like I was being rude, and I was only asking things to know to make sure I didn't miss anything with that glitch. I went to Support and asked if she could please just tell me what she found inciting about my asking something that people had been discussing. I asked, if she took my tone wrong, where it was, what words sounded rude or came off wrong to her. She couldn't tell me and the only thing she did do was c/p the definition of "incite" which I knew. I finally, after more back and forth, begged her to explain it because by then she considered me on my third warning, and I was terrified I would be suspended. I just wanted to understand so I didn't do it again. I wound up eventually just thanking her because she never did answer my actual question. I stayed out of the serious forums for quite awhile after that because since I didn't know what was found inciting, I didn't know how to not do it again. I started hanging out in Chit-Chat because I figured there are not too many serious subjects that I could get into trouble posting there. And I believe that was one of the times I was so.... just tired and dejected by the end of it that I ended up crying. I just wanted to know what I did wrong. I still have a SS of the post I made, and I've asked people, and they've pointed to things that may have came off wrong, I put in a "lol" which may have been seen as sarcastic, I just don't know. I actually put it in there because I wanted it to seem nonthreatening, and I was on my second warning, I really didn't want to get a third, so the fact that I went out of my way to make the post not inciting, and then it was called inciting, and I was just.... idk disappointed. I just wanted to ask some questions to protect my account. :/
Sigh. I guess it doesn't matter really. It's not going to change. I think I am just read wrong, and I really am not sure how to stop that. I have tried to change the way I talk, but I'm 32, this is just how I communicate. I've never had anyone else take it wrongly as often as her. There are some people we run into who just read us all wrong. And heck, maybe I read her intentions wrong too, I have no idea. It just sucks to be blunt.
Delete"I consider - and am not alone - a URL flipper to navigate between a site's own pages about as much of a "hack" as using the arrow keys to move the location of my cursor in text, or the back/forward browser arrows to move between pages/sites."
DeleteYou can consider it whatever you want, but FooPets, under the protection of their terms agreement, will ultimately decide whether or not the users abused the site.
"If it is interdicted, it needs to be addressed in the ToS as a separate issue, as I have yet to find any site - including this one - who considers it a hack."
Maybe after this incident, they will address it specifically, since the terms agreement they currently have did not come across clearly enough. But if they go over every possible situation play-by-play in the terms, then the agreement would be quite long and people would still choose not to read it and not to abide by the rules set forth by it.
"It isn't code manipulation - nothing is added, changed, or deleted, the real definition of hacking in my book."
No, it's not code manipulation in a sense of the code in the page files being edited, however, it is database manipulation, which is a serious offense. Unauthorized data was created using a combination of a made up URL ("made up" as in, a URL not accessible through the site's interface), the completion of the form used in the new user creation process, and the action of clicking the submit button.
If you think that this was not a hack, then why is Foo asking for the baby Pokeys to be given back?
(Gold Rush in another hat) I think they are asking that because it was the first idea that occurred to them to deal with the situation. And if a page can be readily accessed by URL flipping, then by definiton it IS "accessible through the site's interface"...and it's also beside the point. As my research into this indicates that there are at least three - possibly more - ways this could be done, with or without using a URL flipper, and the odds are ALL of them were used by somebody, the point is not how it happened, or even the level of culpability, but whether the site's initial decision as to what to do about the problem is the best one for all concerned, including the site.
DeleteThe following is a copy/paste of something I said above...which I believe bears repeating.
"I have been given the understanding that Admin was aware of the situation almost immediately - well, they could hardly miss it, I'm sure threads were flying faster than the Flash's shuttle - and for unknown reasons did not post at all until they formed a policy.
This was a tragic error, and the REAL point that this debate should be turning on, not how it was done (and I'm willing to bet there are actually several possible ways, and no way to tell which was employed in any given case), not who said what about it in the interim, not whether or not any of those who succeeded in adopting one knew they shouldn't or not.
A "wait until we can look into this!" announcement needed to be made IMMEDIATELY indicating that the site had reservations about what was going on - and wasn't. No formal statement from the site meant tacit approval, with or without input from ambs.
Will these additional Pokeys do any damage to the site simply by existing?
Probably not.
Will allowing them to remain as Pokeys set a bad precedent?
Quite possibly.
Will changing them into their respective Foo breeds do any harm?
I don't see how - seeing as we know the coding for that exists, so that the "money's worth" issue is aborted - and those who adopted a pet as a new join are not "cheated"...which they will be under the present policy."
"And if a page can be readily accessed by URL flipping, then by definiton it IS "accessible through the site's interface"...and it's also beside the point."
DeleteI disagree with this statement because the site's interface does not include the address bar in the browser. FooPets did not build the address bar in your browser and therefore it is not the proper means of site navigation. Sure, it is there and it can be used in place of the navigation provided by the site, but it is not a part of the site interface. The FooPets interface consists of the pages that FooPets built.
"A "wait until we can look into this!" announcement needed to be made IMMEDIATELY indicating that the site had reservations about what was going on - and wasn't. No formal statement from the site meant tacit approval, with or without input from ambs."
Why would they have been obligated to do that when people were exploiting the create new user page? If they announced it before they prevented people from exploiting it, then even more people would know and rush in to try to exploit it. Then there would be more damage. And no, just because they did not make an announcement does not mean they approved it. The terms agreement, had it been read, would have made it known that FooPets did not approve. The kicker here is that people were actually representing that they did read and agree to the terms when they exploited the site. They have no excuse for breaking the rules.
Anon, you are welcome to do whatever you wish, just as we are. Thank you. I am certain you will have no problem in Support since you really have no actual problem or issue. That and because I actually believe you to be either Tracy or one of the Fas. Your steadfast refusal to say whom you are, even though you have been asked a multitude of times, speaks loudly. As does your writing style and choice of phrasing. If indeed you were simply another random player you would be happy to give your name so that Foo would be aware of your loyalty and hopefully show you their undying gratitude.
ReplyDeleteI am not Traci, nor do I represent her or FooPets.
DeleteIf I did show my name, even without the intention to brown-nose to the admins, the posters here would say I am brown-nosing to the admins. When I post anonymously, nobody can say that.
Yes, my dear, but you can choose any "personal" designation you wish, revealing as much or little about yourself as you desire...it would be more polite, more credible, less...er...dramatic, and if nothing else, it would make my sanity a little less fragile, lol, as at one point I had several dozen Anons all posting at once.
DeleteAnon - You seem to know, well I guess (only saying this because I know jacksquat so I don't know if you are correct or not) a lot about computers, but sometimes the blog experience can be confusing because a lot of them are different. Please don't think I'm condescending, I'm really just trying to help here, as I already told one of my friends how to do this as well. If you want to stay anon, but at least use a name (whatever you decide to use) to make it less confusing since I think there are a few anons here, go to:
DeleteReply as:
From the dropdown menu, choose Name/URL, and you can type in any name you want. It won't tie it to your email rendering you effectively still anonymous, but at least we can see it's you when we see your name come up in the future. With multiple anons, it's hard to keep track of whether we're still talking to you or someone else.
Anon - No one is judging you here. With that being said, the way you talk and try to defend Foo makes me curious as to who you are. Especially since you are saying you have been with Foo since it started. I can't believe you nor your friends are unaware of internal issues Foo has. You want me to believe you are satisfied with Foo and how it has been run, nor had a single issue yourself or don't know anyone that has? I can also say I wish you WERE Traci....for all her faults, at least then I would know she cared. You are talking to long standing customers of Foo. We love our pets, but I think I speak collectively when I tell you we are all sick and disheartened by Foos actions. I'd be the 1st person in line to apologize if I were in the wrong. In this particular instance, I'm not.
Delete(good grief, again, lol...) just finished the whole diatribe (I admit to skimming some of the longer posts - of everyone, whether new or familiar, as I still haven't slept in the better part of 72 hours and don't know how much longer I will be coherent without a lot rest (Anon - one of them, anyway - s far as I know standard HTML coding (< etc) functions here, we'll find out in a minute as I just tried some).
ReplyDeleteNOTE ONE - I consider - and am not alone - a URL flipper to navigate between a site's own pages about as much of a "hack" as using the arrow keys to move the location of my cursor in text, or the back/forward browser arrows to move between pages/sites. If it is interdicted, it needs to be addressed in the ToS as a separate issue, as I have yet to find any site - including this one - who considers it a hack. It isn't code manipulation - nothing is added, changed, or deleted, the real definition of hacking in my book.
NOTE TWO - This process - whatever it was and however it happened - was "found" initially by someone with no knowledge of the site, its pets, or its policies. This essentially derails all contentions that it was a deliberate cheat of any kind, regardless of subsequent actions and/or comments by members and staff alike. Actually, it's looking more and more like a genuine coding blip of some kind, as a URL flipper would generate identical results every time - which was not the case here.
NOTE THREE - Support has not been notably responsive to member needs since the option to audit General Issue tickets was removed in early 2010. While I don't believe I've ever dealt with Traci personally, Support staff in general appears unwilling - or unable - to live up to their name and actually solve member problems. (Hence the establishment of Member-Run Support, effectively taking on the function of the original open comments) This failing is documented in countless threads and message series. Most of the people I dealt with would fall under the heading of "civil but ineffective" - which by no means implies incompetence on their part...the sense I got was "my hands are tied but I'll try to pass the word along for you". I am sorry for them - like the ambs, they have a difficult and largely thankless job. This does not make what amounts to an elaborate runaround any more palatable, however. Anyone who doubts this is welcome to contemplate the reason for the ban on sharing your OWN Support ticket information on or off-site - though how they expect to restrict, much less control, what we do elsewhere is beyond me.
NOTE FOUR - this site has banked for a long time on people's attachment to their pets, through various incarnations from Go-Pokey onwards. And it has worked. We have put up with a lot of normally-unacceptable changes and behavior on the part of site and its administrators (large and small A's), and gone along with arbitrary, poorly-announced, and downright destructive policies in the hopes that patience and good faith would eventually win out. Finally, Rivet carried the trend to its ultimate conclusion and decimated the membership by making pay-to-play compulsory. Those of us still here feel we have a right to some say in how the site operates, as we are now effectively investors in it (though most of us were already, as the foundation membership was comprised largely of adults). Every other site I am on is open and honest about its faults and needs - finances incuded. Had they ASKED, I rather think the site would have been far better off financially than it is now...instead, trickery, coersion and blackmail were employed. Ron and company inherited this problem, along with the damage it does to the site ecomony...and mentality.
Well...it's been about a year and a half now - Ron, in the best interests of the site and all it means to all of us, including you, isn't it time you stepped forward and made a State of the Foonion address?
(I apologize again for posting on the wrong thread. It seems that when I hit "reply" on something and then cancel and go to reply to something else, it posts it to the first thread. Below is the post I meant to post here.)
Delete"I consider - and am not alone - a URL flipper to navigate between a site's own pages about as much of a "hack" as using the arrow keys to move the location of my cursor in text, or the back/forward browser arrows to move between pages/sites."
You can consider it whatever you want, but FooPets, under the protection of their terms agreement, will ultimately decide whether or not the users abused the site.
"If it is interdicted, it needs to be addressed in the ToS as a separate issue, as I have yet to find any site - including this one - who considers it a hack."
Maybe after this incident, they will address it specifically, since the terms agreement they currently have did not come across clearly enough. But if they go over every possible situation play-by-play in the terms, then the agreement would be quite long and people would still choose not to read it and not to abide by the rules set forth by it.
"It isn't code manipulation - nothing is added, changed, or deleted, the real definition of hacking in my book."
No, it's not code manipulation in a sense of the code in the page files being edited, however, it is database manipulation, which is a serious offense. Unauthorized data was created using a combination of a made up URL ("made up" as in, a URL not accessible through the site's interface), the completion of the form used in the new user creation process, and the action of clicking the submit button.
If you think that this was not a hack, then why is Foo asking for the baby Pokeys to be given back?
(Gold Rush in another hat) you can delete the misplaced post once you put it where you'd like it. multiple threads-within-a-thread make my head spin, too.
Deleteas I replied where I first found it, I'mm dragging it down here.
I think they are asking that because it was the first idea that occurred to them to deal with the situation. And if a page can be readily accessed by URL flipping, then by definiton it IS "accessible through the site's interface"...and it's also beside the point. As my research into this indicates that there are at least three - possibly more - ways this could be done, with or without using a URL flipper, and the odds are ALL of them were used by somebody, the point is not how it happened, or even the level of culpability, but whether the site's initial decision as to what to do about the problem is the best one for all concerned, including the site.
The following is a copy/paste of something I said above...which I believe bears repeating.
"I have been given the understanding that Admin was aware of the situation almost immediately - well, they could hardly miss it, I'm sure threads were flying faster than the Flash's shuttle - and for unknown reasons did not post at all until they formed a policy.
This was a tragic error, and the REAL point that this debate should be turning on, not how it was done (and I've discovered there are actually several possible ways, and no way to tell which was employed in any given case), not who said what about it in the interim, not whether or not any of those who succeeded in adopting one knew they shouldn't or not.
A "wait until we can look into this!" announcement needed to be made IMMEDIATELY indicating that the site had reservations about what was going on - and wasn't. No formal statement from the site meant tacit approval, with or without input from ambs.
Will these additional Pokeys do any damage to the site simply by existing?
Probably not.
Will allowing them to remain as Pokeys set a bad precedent?
Quite possibly.
Will changing them into their respective Foo breeds do any harm?
I don't see how - seeing as we know the coding for that exists, so that the "money's worth" issue is aborted - and those who adopted a pet as a new join are not "cheated"...which they will be under the present policy."
(Addendum) I was just paging back though - this business of commenting on comments is eventually going to send me round the bend, lol, I can never figure out where the new posts ARE - and observed a valid issue - no one is obliged to share anyone else's opinion...of anything. The Foop was founded for us to enjoy each other's company and experiences on the site, and poke gentle fun at things that tickled us...the first issue was all about FooPoop, for heaven sakes, and inspired the name. Sadly, we lost our innocence early on, bit this is still a place to gather and share.
ReplyDeleteIn the absense of actual hard information (seldom available initially, or we wouldn't be discussing the issue in the first place), no one - myself included - is divinely "right". I say what I think, and so should everyone else. No one is required to agree with anyone else's statements automatically, and while debate between opposing viewpoints can be healthy, it should not get personal or hurtful in either direction, pro or con. I had to take draconian measures on this matter once before, and I REALLY don't want to see it get back to that. Posts should be civil, and points and rebuttals as clearly and responsibly phrased as possible. Namecalling, personalities, and nastiness happen enough elsewhere - it does NOT belong in the Foop.
FooBA4U stands for Foo Betterment Association For You - ALL of you. We are here to work for the good of the site and its members. I did not set out to be "political" - but events took over and I have spent the last four years or so riding the tiger through more change and uproar than I have even seen anywhere, as I'm sure have many or most of you. The goal of the Foop and FooBA4U is to work to make FooPets what it was, could be...and CAN be - but if we are at one anothers' throats because we disagree in what that should be, it will never come to pass.
"FooBA4U stands for Foo Betterment Association For You - ALL of you."
DeleteYou know, I never even thought to ask what that meant. I like it though. And the above two posts as well, so much of what you said was what I wanted to say, but I have trouble sometimes stating my feelings succinctly, and I do feel most of what you said is right on. I am about ready to say whatever, and share my support tickets anyhow, or at least one or two so people can see, that they can be very hurtful down there, even when you try your hardest to be nice, polite, and just be a good person.
The main thing I can't stress enough is - some of us try, we do try. We don't like being in big outs with the management. In general, it's not pleasant to feel like you can't ever do anything right. It makes me feel like the unwanted stepchild.
Hear, hear. Thanks FooBA4U.
ReplyDeleteJust wanting to say that despite the fact that I still disagree with some things, I will apologize. My manner at times here has been rude and abrasive. I have been posting some of the times in support that I have felt treated unfairly or bullied, harassed or unwanted, and I still feel bad feelings about that. Anger, yes, but I have also been hurt by those actions. Talking about it, I realize I didn't come here to be hurtful, I came to speak my mind. Obviously, from some of my posts here it is easy to assume I am probably this way in Support as well, but I'm not. I have been rude in Support, but most of the time I try to keep my anger in check and be polite. Which is something I did not strive for here, and I want to say I am very sorry if I hurt any feelings. Feeling bullied sucks, and it's not a feeling I was to spread to others. That's not fair.
ReplyDeleteI forgive you.
DeleteWell... thanks! :)
DeleteWhy do I get the feeling that Anonymous (the one who wholeheartedly supports the Admins and Ambassadors of Foo) might be someone related to one of them? If they ARE, then even if they DID try to test what might happen in Support if they tried to make any complaints, they would NEVER in a million years be treated as ugly as some of us have been. They are privileged.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to know the TRUTH of how people can be treated, try going to support from an account that absolutely no one knows, that does not have your real name attached to it in any way such as what happens when you pay with your own credit card, that was created from an IP no where close to the ones you use regularly and try not to give away who you really are. Then go make a complaint about something similar to what we have tried to complain about. Be as nice and sweet as you like.
What would you be told?
And please, don't think that we are not judged by those in charge before they even open the support tickets just so they can be snide with us?
Without even making a single complaint, I have been targeted just because I am friends with everyone who has posted here. I have even been unfriended by people I have known for years just because of who I call friends. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with anything that I ever did against them because I never in my life ever did anything to hurt them or their feelings. It was just because I love Az, Lainee, OBC, Kaylina, Kizzee, Foo Sista and many of the other people we all mutually call friends. I was judged and convicted on that alone, not on my actions. They lied to my face about the reason but as stupid as they must think that I am, the timing of it all was way too much of a coincidence. Am I hurt? Yes, yes I am. Because these people who had KNOWN me for a couple of years judged me through no fault of my own.
Matthew 7: 1-5
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
I am not related to the FooPets admins, nor do I represent them.
Delete"I have even been unfriended by people I have known for years just because of who I call friends."
Why is that?
"Why is that?"
DeleteYour question makes very little sense to me, sorry. What is it exactly that you are trying to ask me?
I meant to say why did your friends unfriend you based on your friendships with the people you listed?
DeleteThey told me it was only because I had not replied to their last message and that they only keep those they talk to often as their friends. After years of being their friend, not only there but on other mediums and sometimes having long bouts of no contact from EITHER of us, because you know that is a two way street, I was tossed away. And I HAD replied to their last message, it was still there on their wall among the mass of other messages they had gotten from various other friends of theirs days prior to them deciding I was worthless and so expendable. I even pointed out the message to them. The unfriending came about very shortly after a particular event that my REAL friends were WRONGLY accused of being a part of. So I know the truth behind that person's actions and all they did was prove that they are nothing more than a hypocrite. "I will be your friend only if I approve of every single person on your friend list." I care very much for those on my friend list, even the ones I don't get to talk to very often. I leave my little "love" notes for them now and then and they appreciate it. They know time is precious and I do what I can, when I can. Because REAL friends are understanding.
DeleteBy the way, I noticed you said that you were not related to an Admin. You said absolutely nothing about not being related to an Ambassador.
DeleteI am not related nor do I represent an Ambassador, either.
Deleteyou sound like the mole to me.
DeleteI am the mole? Excuse me while I catch my breath from the sudden onslaught of mad giggles of epic proportions. Mole indeed. These people know exactly who I am. I choose not to tell YOU who I am.
DeleteAnd if the Anon who said that about being a mole was not directing that comment towards me then I truly do apologize. It's confusing trying to figure out which anon is which. That's why I chose my name. First letter and last syllable of anonymous. :)
DeleteMany people feel called on to defend the site - myself included from time to time, as some of you may recall - when they feel it is unfairly attacked, or even just to offer a balanced point of view. This does not make them moles, or spies, or suggest they have an official affiliation with FooPets.
DeleteWe DO have someone watching that IS official, lol - certain things that have happened on the other side of the fence have made that obvious - but to the best of my knowledge they participate little if at all, to keep from "blowing their cover". (it's okay, guys - you can be open about it - I'd welcome "official" input - it's the lack thereof - not so much here as onsite - that cause all the speculation in the first place.
I was the anon who first posted about Traci's vicious phone call, by the way. Just wanted to clear that up.
ReplyDeleteKizzee again, yeah, I still don't want to sort this 'name business' out with posting here, honestly, I just don't have time...barely time to even read.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is kind enough to give me a summary of what is going on, I would be grateful, I am seeing my name mentioned & get very confused...
Also, to A-Mous...if people are unfriending you because you are friends with me, I am truly sorry, all I can offer is my friendship & loyalty, they may walk away, I won't - saying that, the pettiness of people to stoop so low as to unfriending over who is friends with whom, has always & will always be a trait & action I won't respect, I don't get on with people who like to control or attempt to control who are friends with who, people try to with me, it does not last very long, I end up telling them where to go :) <3 much love!
This all started with speculation about whether or not the users or FooPets should take responsibility for the baby Pokey exploit. I came here and cited the terms of use and said that the people who did this were "URL hacking" and that they are not innocent and should give the Pokeys back and just be glad they didn't get suspended or banned. Several other people have said that they did not do a "hack" because people shelter surf all the time and the FAs, after being notified of the exploit, seemed fine with it. Additionally, they feel that when they created the accounts to do the exploit, they paid money and therefore should get to keep the pet.
DeleteWe've discussed what Foo could do instead of taking the Pokeys back (someone suggested "Fooifying them" and someone has said they should take responsibility for not preventing the exploit with extra programming), the male calico glitch was mentioned, and a lot of expression of frustration about Traci has been expressed. Many people think that I am Traci or someone related to Foo, but I am not (just to clear that up).
Lainee has an interesting case because she did not exploit to get her baby Pokey, she bought it from another user, and yet she still had to turn hers in. A-Mous has brought up the issue with people passing judgement based on a person's friends list.
So there is a lot to be discussed here, and it has been a very colorful discussion, to say the least. I think that pretty much summarizes it, if I'm not mistaken.
Nothing to apologize for Kiz. A light was shone on those who were false and they scattered back into the dark. You all stayed and have stayed with me. Even when you all knew I was friends with them too, you all never ONCE even hinted there was any kind of problem with it. To be honest, even if they had come to me and told me straight to my face they had had a problem with all of you and that they didn't think they could stay my friend, I would have thanked them for being honest but they still would of had to go. Love me for ME. Do not judge me for my friends. I may not like some people that some of you all call friends but I do not judge you for it. EVERYONE deserves to have friends but not everyone should be forced to choose between friends either. I love you all deeply and I honestly don't think there is anything that could change that short of telling me that I cannot be your friend and friends with someone else. We've known each other far too long to let petty antics get in the way of our friendships. <3
DeleteWell said A-Mous. A few years ago a child tried to dictate who my friends could be and couldn't be if I was to have her friendship. That ended badly for the girl. As an adult I do not need to have anyone control my ability to choose people I care about.
DeleteYep you are mistaken!
ReplyDeleteMistaken about what? I thought that was a fairly good summation. Kiz asked for concise and that was about as concise as it is going to get. You lost me on that.....
Deleteit's a summary, and adequate to cover the highlights as far as I can see...I'm fine with it, Anon. It may be a tad slanted toward the author's POV, but that's natural enough - mine would have been as well. anyone seeking more detail can either read the actual post (as opposed to the comments) or just skimm through the comments themselves.
DeleteWhat really bothers me, besides all this...is the favoritism. Anyone who brought up a thread 12 days AFTER the last post would get reprimanded. I find there is a few people that get all kinds of favoritism from the FAs.
Deletehttp://www.foopets.com/topics/show/2498663?forum_id=35&page=1
It looks like a wonderful thread of gift giving. Two members congratulate the OP on her kindness towards another member. The OP said she was gifting a car to another member, but as soon as the other two members told her how wonderful of a thing she was doing, she turned it around and told them to gift it to her. There was clearly a misreading by the OP, or she twisted it to back out of the deal. She then twisted their words, made them look like horrible people. Made huge horrible posts putting down one of the other members. When all that member did was tell her that she was doing a wonderful thing. She left the post for 12 days, comes back with a horrible post that all her friends flagged useful. Then she asked a FA to lock it for her. With NO word to that member for bumping her thread 12 days later or reprimanding her for her bullying post. ANY one of us to do something like this would have at least a week of social privileges taken away from us.
This isn't the first or the last time they have gotten special treatment, I have SS's of them clearly breaking the ToS and nothing happened to them. Not a damn thing.
I also know of 3 FAs (and have proof) that have broken the rules they have being FA's. Not only sharing information with normal members, but also using their FA abilities to help themselves.
Is this off topic, I don't feel so...we are talking about rule breaking. It may not be these rules but I find it funny that these same people (among many others) are the ones being horrible to people about the Baby pokeys yet they themselves are certainly not infallible...
Another member was calling people down to the lowest for owning Baby Pokeys, yet she herself was seen trading off sight her foo items and fds for another games items. This is a huge violation of the ToS. Those in glass houses...
OBC...I think that Anonymous's "Yep you are mistaken!" reply was to A-Mous's post about the mole...though I could be wrong....this is confoosing lol
DeleteThose things bother me too, Kaylina
DeleteIt is these and other behaviors by the ambassadors that led me to say in an earlier post that I thought all of the fas should be gotten rid of. They just are not setting good examples for the rest of the players. As moderators they must be above reproach. Instead of getting rid of them though, Foo could actually train them to do their job in a professional way. There are actually people who will do this training. People from outside the company so there are no conflicts of interest. At this point though, I cannot help feeling it would be best to let these mods go back to being regular players and hiring mods that have no stake in the game and have already been properly trained to do the job. I play on other game sites that have these types of mods and it works very well. In fact, I play on several other sites, some smaller and some larger than Foo. I have NEVER seen the problems on those games that we have here and I think it needs to be closely scrutinized and then corrected.
DeleteAnon's reply about the mole was there before I posted about the mole. The mistaken post was in reply to the other Anon.
DeleteIt does get very confusing lol. Can always check time stamps of the posts though. Those should help clarify some things. :)
Goodness, I did not mean Anon's "reply" about the mole, I meant Anon's "post" about the mole. Anon still has not replied to my own postings about anyone being a mole. lol!
DeleteThank you for confoosing me further, A-Mous lol
Delete"I also know of 3 FAs (and have proof) that have broken the rules they have being FA's. Not only sharing information with normal members, but also using their FA abilities to help themselves."
DeleteI think that the Fas gift messages should be looked at, there has been too many things happening on that site that cannot be explained without certain privileged information being shared. Be fore anything is said about gift messages being private, ours are already read by the powers that be.
...Now I am starting to think I should use a name because people who chime in as "Anonymous" are assumed to be me, but perhaps slightly out of character. I didn't think I would be talking so much that a name would matter, but I started with this name and might as well end with it, since you all know me as "Anonymous" now.
DeleteCan't remember how to create a name...sorry.
Delete@ Kaylina: Thank you for confirming what I suspected. I do believe part of my infos were shared with a player who later on suggested on meebo they knew something about me. They were kind enough ( sarcasm ) to give me an hint. No other member knew about it, unless someone in power had taken a look .....
Anon, perhaps you could change your name to Anon 1 or something slightly different so we can differentiate between you and other Anons? It IS becoming confuzzling! :-)
DeleteI think it might be more confusing if I change my name now since I've been posting so much and have been "Anonymous" all along.
DeleteYou can also do like Kiz and say something like, "Hey, this is THE Original Anonymous!"
DeleteExcuse me, I just made myself laugh so hard while drinking water that i must now clean my screen.....
I've had the same name, personality, and argument for the whole time so I might as well stay that way. I think I've been the only one here saying that rules were broken, FooPets was URL hacked, and people should go to Support with their problems. If you see someone named Anonymous posting with my point of view, then most likely it is either me or somebody who agrees with me. ...I would appreciate hearing from somebody who agrees with me, but I get the feeling that most of the people who are posting are only here to defend themselves because they exploited the new user page.
DeleteOk, trying this way
DeleteI only posted to thank Kaylina. :) there won't be another post from me as I have nothing else to add .
I strive to please lol!
ReplyDeleteSo who was the first one to find the baby Pokey exploit to begin with and what did they tell the FAs?
ReplyDelete