deb said...
I am quitting and wish I had the where-with-all to just hit delete, but alas, I do not. Wonderful friends have come to my rescue and many of my pets have been rehomed. I will admit to crying like an idiot when I rehomed my yorkie, Maverick, but Foo makes me weary and unhappy now; their careless and callous disregard for their clientele is epic. Friends are being suspended and/or banned without explanation. I need to leave there before it implodes.
December 17, 2010 7:32 PM
GOLD RUSH said...
DON'T LEAVE! click the top right and go underground - where we can watch each others' backs and wait out the current round of FooLishness.
December 18, 2010 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...
I am one of those folks that lost a huge amount from foo all under some pretense. I had two accounts that are now gone. One had over 20,000fds and about 15,000fds worth of pets..the other had 15,000fds and about 60,000fds worth of pets. ........I lost legacy foos, oddstats including special ones born on Christmas day, I lost about 11 ultra stats. ....The reasoning? I had "accepted stolen fds" I can only figure from pet sales...(I never know who I sell pets to...they were on public sale)....and I had sold pets for "excessive" prices. 9 emails later, 3 weeks and still no response as to what any of that means and no response at all to a request to get my accounts back............I can't see any lawsuit possible because I don't have any real money on this site. What do I sue for? Fds?
January 2, 2011 12:37 AM
Anonymous said...
Well, anyone who had a club foo account where foo took their account for any period of time and did not give them service, but took their money could sue for damages. And in cases like this, a class action would be the way to go since each member lost so little. Any attorneys around who can help with this? Not to mention the attorney general of the state of California where foo is located should be informed of mass fraud as well as the Better Business Bureau.
January 2, 2011 3:32 AM
Anonymous said...
Ryan here.
Seems to me that foo is trying to take all the fds out of the game. First they sell "ultra" stats and everyone buys them. Then they sell LLs for next to nothing. Now they are literally stealing fds from any members that have a bunch. Then they are deleting pokeys and oddstats from those members as well so there won't be any high priced pets around. Am I totaly wrong, or isn't it illegal to steal a person's fds? Forget the terms of service. They can't be legal either.....we get to do anything to you we want including give you nothing, but you have to give us money and we will never give it back under any circumstances. Just because it is a written contract, doesn't mean it is a LEGAL contract. Imagine if Kmart tried it...you give us money and if we feel like we will give you a toaster. If we don't feel like it we will keep your money and throw you out of the store. Doesn't that sound absurd?
January 2, 2011 1:54 PM
GOLD RUSH said...
it IS absurd - and litigable - and they are COUNTING on people not taking foodollars seriously enough to get away with it. they cost real money - they are real tender. think of a poker chip. dig up your credit records, they will show receipt by foo of your RL dough that paid for them. screenshoot your ledger, if they haven't wiped it - or find someone they haven't taken down yet who can demonstrate the value of Legacies etc. holding the owner of a pet on public sale responsible for who buys it is BEYOND absurd. Foo dug this hole with ClubFoo : by all butforcing people to join, pouring vast numbers of discounted tender into the game, they created a hopelessly inflated game economy and are now madly flailing to correct it - as usual, at member expense. it's hard to tell which delights them more - manufacturing an excuse to pull "surplus" foodollars out of circulation, or being able to dispose of all those pokeys they have been trying to get rid of since they rolled the site over in 12/08.
January 9, 2011 12:59 PM
Anonymous said...
i personally had dealings with a member who was exhibiting really concerning behaviour and statements, talking about self harm and suicidie. She was very young and having had extensive mental health training myself, i felt action needed to be taken to protect this girl and offer her support and intervention. I reported this and hva since found out thispoor girl has been suspended. probably for good. I am thoroughly ashamed of foos response to this.
January 14, 2011 6:58 PM
Helden said...
My feeling about the "art glitch pogrom" involving the "let the seller beware" protocol is that no, Pokey breeders were not targeted. Apparently pet sales over a certain amount were targeted. Automatically. (Yeah, really crude!) It only seemed like they were targeting Pokey owners because the "rare" Pokeys are the only pets on here that sell for that kind of dough.
January 15, 2011 8:23 AM
Remi Ironstaff said...
makes sense, according to their recent logic...and nailing the pokey population as a side effect must have struck them as a nice perk. plus they've been using it as a smokescreen to dispose of a bunch of other little headaches while they were at it, including any teenagers trusting enough to ask for friendly support over a depressing holiday.
i guess they figure it's had its run and too many have seen through it - they've killed off Kate so now she can take all the blame for them. real sweet.
January 15, 2011 10:44 AM
GOLD RUSH said...
to anon from yesterday - yes, we were just made aware of this by our own FooMojo "Deep Throat" and are investigating. we have been given one name so far and have rescued all salvagable pets and contacted their friends. anyone knowing of any others - especially if you know where we can fins a board message to grab their link - LET US KNOW ASAP, please!
January 15, 2011 12:25 PM
Dae.Dreamer said...
I actually swore off posting anywhere on site or off because I've pretty much had it with FMJ. But I feel compelled to comment re: the altering of links on our profiles.
According to the ToS on the host sites I use for my pictures, and I'm sure all others, altering their codes without express written permission is forbidden. And as I've had my image host site memberships deleted in the past for this very same thing, I know this is a truth that should not be taken lightly.
Therefore, I've wiped my profile clean and replaced all my two years of work with a long-winded message as to why I did so.
While speaking out on this very subject, against my own better judgment, in a forum thread on said subject, I was belittled and threatened not only by the two "a's" that were present, but also by other members. So, I deleted all my posts in that thread and proceeded to sanitize my profile. Screw it. I'm disabled and battle depression every day of my life and going to FooPets USED to ease that some. Now? Going there only serves to make it worse. It's not healthy for me.
Maybe I'm sadly mistaken, but of all the sites I've been involved with over the years, FooPets is the ONLY site that forbids people, in essence, to personalize their profiles.
I'm sick of it. And I mean REALLY sick of it. I whine and complain and literally cry about all of this, yet I'm still there. I know I stay because hope, as they say, springs eternal. Plus I have friends who I love and I adore my FooPets. But how much longer do I hang on hoping for something to change for the better and knowing it probably won't? Especially when going there only serves to deepen my depression?
Anyway, I don't know if I'll be posting again, I don't plan to. But I will be around trying to keep up with any new information and whatnot. I just thought I'd throw this out there.
Thanks for listening.
~DaeDreamer
January 20, 2011 11:43 PM
Dae.Dreamer said...
And WTH?!? They're stealing our FDs now??? Gah! Why am I still a member?!?
January 20, 2011 11:48 PM
GOLD RUSH said...
hm - do sites like photobucket and glitterfy consider paring the URL down to the image code "altering"? heaven knows, i tack in alternate hrefs all the time - or at least i used to...
as i read it, as long as the pix don't connect to anything but themselves, they are acceptable - have they now upped the ante to ANY href connection?
as it stands, i have deactivated my hrefs by moving the /a (it won't let you put the < > with it here) up adjacent to them, preceding the image code - this leaves the code intact (and reactivatable) - and the image showing.
i have also NOT deleted KibbleCat etc - foomojo is mandated to support RL pet charities...i'm actually HOPING they try to make an issue out of those.
yes, the art glitch has been used as bogus justification for a lot of pocket-picking, as we understand...and they managed to get rid of a lot of pokeys as a side benny.
we'll keep slugging...and posting. they can kill the onsite clickables - but not the Foop. waiting to see how they try to say we can't use the words "google" or "fooscooper"...
January 21, 2011 11:26 AM
Dae.Dreamer said...
Hmmm. Yes ALL the pix seem to have a link which leads to itself (the album it's kept in), AT the host site, still an outside site. Image Shack's link is actually located under the pictures it hosts. Either way, the link is taking you to an outside site. These are things that I was trying to understand, but instead I was being treated like an ignorant two-year-old. I just felt it was better to just wipe my profile completely. If I leave, it's going to be on my terms.
The one thing I'm sure of is that with Image Shack anyway, you are not allowed to alter their codes in any way without their express written permission and they supply a specific code, which includes a link back to their site (to my album), specifically created for use on other sites. FMJ is really unethical to me to be demanding that we alter the codes of other sites just to suit their paranoia.
Maybe I AM being immature, but I guess I've just had it with them. Every day I get up and log in to Foo and wonder wth I'm doing there. There's no joy or excitement upon logging in anymore. I just hit the Instacare button several times and leave. After the way the "a's" and other smart assed members treated me in the forums yesterday, I'll never go back there either.
There's too many ridiculous rules and to be honest, I haven't even seen ANYTHING official with re: to this outside link debacle. Or any other of the myriad, perhaps ridiculous rules they may have.
I will admit that I can be extremely dense at times. Ask my son. lol I really drive him crazy when he's trying to get me to understand something I'm just not getting. But to me, going by what I was told in the forums, NO links leading ANYWHERE off site are permitted. And because I was threatened both in the forums and through private message to delete my links or else, I just wiped my profile.
It would be interesting to talk to a shrink re: all this mess. I'd like to know why any of us are doing what we're doing rather than just leaving. Lately, I'm not making any sense to me.
January 21, 2011 1:22 PM
Dae.Dreamer said...
An excerpt from Image Shack's ToS:
"...Changing ImageShack linking codes is prohibited without prior permission. "
January 21, 2011 1:23 PM
Dae.Dreamer said...
Here is an excerpt from Photobucket's ToS. You should note that TinyPic is owned by Photobucket and although I didn't go thru TinyPic's ToS, I would assume the same applies with them:
"...pages on other web sites that display content hosted on Photobucket must provide a link from each photo or video back to its page on Photobucket. Photobucket reserves the right to take appropriate legal action for any illegal or unauthorized use of the Photobucket Services."
January 21, 2011 11:42 PM
Dae.Dreamer said...
I'm feeling sick and depressed at the moment or I'd attempt to look up more of these ToS from different sites. But I don't believe any host site allows you to use their links on any third party site without including a link back to the picture a.k.a. their site.
I was told in private by a certain "a" to get rid of all my links or "else." So I did. Not one link on my page went anywhere except back to the same picture on the host site. Except for an award my dear friend gave me and my leveling up awards. All of which I removed.
I think FMJ is not helping the way I've been feeling. So, I'm outie.
Peace, My friends.
Oh and if I'm still missing something or appear to be incredibly dense, it's probably because I am. No lol. Just me.
Take care ~B
January 21, 2011 11:52 PM
GOLD RUSH said...
no, you seem to have the Big Picture down correctly...and gave me info re PB etc i wasn't aware of, including the fact that if i upload MY pix to their service for editing they then own them. Hmf. as there is a way to recode an image for clicking that leaves them linked as well, that can simply be filed under "remember"...i found and read the much-vaunted post by Corie (gone through in detail, above), and it features their usual gang of contradictions - no images without attribution, and no "third-party links", whatever they are.
January 22, 2011 7:27 AM
Dae.Dreamer said...
Oh yeah. You have to be very picky about what photos you upload to the net anywhere, because once they hit cyberspace, they never go away. God forgive me for my younger days. O.o But yeah, once you upload images to those sites, said images/videos become their property. Something I sometimes forget myself.
I'm not sure which post (by Corie) that you're referring to. But It's moot at this point since I've been told directly to wipe my profile.
I do know that the links that come with host sites images are third-party links. All of them take you back to the original picture which is hosted on an outside site. So very literally speaking, no outside links means no pictures/decorations. Unless of course, you alter their codes. Which again, is against the host sites ToS.
Maybe I AM immature, maybe I'm just stubborn; but I refuse to go against another site's ToS just to stay within the boundaries of some ludicrous rules laid down by FMJ.
Further, FooPets is the ONLY site I know of personally, that forbids, in essence, people to personalize their profiles. Most sites that I'm familiar with have it in writing that they assume no responsibility for what you add to your profile within certain guidelines. However, they'll jump you quick if you upload something to THEIR servers that they disapprove of. This makes sense and is acceptable any way you slice it. It gives people freedom to express themselves on their own pages, again, within reason.
FMJ by contrast, wants nothing but cookie cutter profiles and employees and volunteers who are just rude and ignorant enough to make sure that's what FMJ gets. Of course I've noticed that most of these same FMJ warriors have outside links lurking all over their pages.
FMJ is also the only site I've ever been involved with that encourages, no insists, that people break laws and ToS agreements of other sites in order to add content to their site. Shady business practices, much?
The good doctor isn't even in charge anymore, but his convict legacy lives on. (Can I say that?)
January 22, 2011 1:38 PM
Dae.Dreamer said...
Update: Miss Xtine says that there are plenty of host sites "out there" that allow you to hotlink your pictures from their sites. However, she chose to ignore my request to share some of those sites with me. Personally, I don't know of any sites that allow you to direct link the images they host, as the links back to their sites is one very important source of advertisement for them.
January 22, 2011 2:59 PM
Dae.Dreamer said...
Oh my my. It looks as though I have counted my chickens before they all hatched. It appears that Image Shack does, indeed, allow hotlinking of the pictures they host. But of course, this information was found in their FAQs and not in their ToS.
I would go back to the Foo Forum and apologize for my misinformation were it not for the way I was treated while I was there last. Not one member or "a" offered up any constructive replies when I made a post. They only belittled and accused.
Anyway apparently, you can hotlink your images from certain host sites. Something I didn't know. They still ask that you not alter their codes in any way when you use them. And that is exactly what FMJ is instructing everyone to do.
So, while I may have been quick to anger re: the whole hotlinking fiasco, they were in no way professional or courteous in the way they acted and reacted to my posts, and others. More importantly, rather than directing people to their respective image host sites to inquire about hotlinking, they simply gave instructions on how to disable their image host site's current codes. This is still a violation of the image host's ToS.
In short, I'm mistaken re: the hotlinking as it pertains to Image Shack. But FMJ is also in the wrong by telling people to alter the image codes.
Two negatives, do not a positive make. But I don't mind admitting I'm wrong if not excruciatingly embarrassed. O.o
January 22, 2011 10:46 PM
Born2CanaanCatHaven said...
Corie's post - phrased as a restating/update of the rules/TOS - is under Member Support...where it is guaranteed limited exposure. god help folks who don't haunt the Forums...and i seriously doubt they gave a second's thought as to whether their fiat put people in violation of anyone else's TOS until it was pointed out (and little or none even then) Plus, INCLUDED in Corie's shopping list is the TOS reg about image attribution...can you spell hypocrisy and double (or triple, or worse) standards? we can...and i would definitely NOT give their idiotic ban fuel by acknowledging that some sites MAY wink at hotlinking.
January 23, 2011 8:11 AM
Dae.Dreamer said...
I love you. LOL I actually lost sleep over my jumping of the gun. It's good to know I still have ya'll to rally around me. Thank you to everyone for that. Again, I may be mistaken re: hotlinking through Image Shack, but they're still very wrong in telling people to alter codes AND in their treatment of certain members.
And trust me. I'm done with the forums over there. I'm a grown woman and if someone were to speak to me outside this computer the way they were speaking to me in those forums, well; I may be old and walk with a cane, but I'd have decked them sure as I'm sitting here. O.O
They need to do their own homework. I'm not doing anymore for them. They're not listening anyway.
Also, if FMJ is so daggone hell bent on no outside links, then why don't THEY do something about it? That is, take a clue from MySpace. My son says that MySpace has now coded their site so that outside links are automatically disabled. I don't how this fits into other site's ToS, but they're not altering codes or telling their members to alter codes. So, I don't know.... Just sayin'
January 23, 2011 2:06 PM
GOLD RUSH said...
DON'T say that where Foo can hear you, lol - code piracy is one of their specialties, and that would solve their enforcement problems in a hurry. i have started placing text boxes in my profiles giving image credit to photobucket (my editing service) for my images where i haven't just disabled the code to render them invisible for the duration.
January 24, 2011 12:09 PM
Dae.Dreamer said...
FYI: I just put a ticket in with Image Shack explaining to them what FMJ is doing, including the fact that they are not only forcing, but actually giving instructions on how to alter image codes.
Image Shack has direct links they allow you to use, but how I'm not sure. Hopefully, I'll hear back from them ASAP as to whether or not I can add the codes to show my images with their direct links and also find out what they plan to do about FMJ.
Also, I don't who these Miss X or Shorti characters are but I'm one step away from hunting them down and eating them. haha. I have never seen such rudeness and disrespect in my LIFE. Especially from this shorti person. What is this person like 12?
I keep swearing off the forums but I keep going back, so I'm sure that one day I'll go to log in and find myself gone. Whatever. At this point, I'm about finished. I can't take the bull at Foo anymore. The fun is gone. And my logging in everyday even just to care for my pets deepens my depression so much that I wind up going back to bed and leaving my son and rl pets to fend for themselves.
Unbelievable.
January 26, 2011 2:33 PM
