A change in RFUK rules - Page 9 - Reptile Forums

Go Back   Reptile Forums > Help and Chat > Snakes

View Poll Results: banned if found guilty
yes 117 87.31%
no 17 12.69%
Voters: 134. You may not vote on this poll


  #81 (permalink)  
Old 01-05-2014, 01:04 PM
Gazb123's Avatar
Super Citizen
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Dunton, Bedfordshire
Posts: 750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 245T View Post
I'll admit that because there was no 'abstain' option I voted 'no' because I did not want to vote 'yes'.

This post has completely changed my mind, so now I vote 'yes'.
Same as myself. I was not going to vote because I wanted an abstain option but I will vote YES now
__________________
1.0.0. Peruvian Rainbow Boa - Paddington
1.0.0. Western Hognose - Harley
0.1.0. Dumeril Boa - Helen
1.0.0. Japanese Rat Snake - Yoshi
1.0.0. Carolina Corn - Cody
0.1.0. BCI - Elspeth
1.0.0 Amazon Tree Boa - Wotsit
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #82 (permalink)  
Old 01-05-2014, 01:42 PM
jarvo's Avatar
Forum Citizen
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Gateshead/Newcastle
Posts: 303
Default

Yes nelly1 the title is misleading but I did not want to the thread to read should the said member be banned as I thought I might wind up in a bit of bother.
This thread may be in the wrong section but the said person caused pain and suffering to snakes among other animals and also pain and suffering to snake owners.
As said before I don't post much if I need any info or have a question I use the search function and so many experienced members on rfuk have helped me without even knowing it. It does sadden me when experienced people think about leaving the forum because of one person, the only people that will lose out are the new ones like myself looking for advice(only been keeping for 4 years so I still see myself as a novice as I'm always learning).

This thread was not intended to start a witch hunt just to get the general feeling of the community, I apologise if any offence has been caused.

I voted yes by the way.

.
nelly1 likes this.

Last edited by jarvo; 01-05-2014 at 02:39 PM..
  #83 (permalink)  
Old 01-05-2014, 09:48 PM
miss_ferret's Avatar
No Life Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 16,519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KathyM View Post
Having her persona, her username, her public platform to build a fake life again is damaging to all of us. If she gets to keep that old username, she gets to rry and rebuild that. Her feedback is 100% positive as none of us that took in her emaciated amd dying animals did so via a classifieds ad. It is just wrong that she should get to stay on that ID.
not to detract from anything else kathy said, but i feel this needs highlighting.

how many people just use this forum for the classifieds? and of those how many make a decision based on the feedback of the user? they will have no way of knowing that what they're being told is bull and that the animal will likely be dead relatively soon. people are already selling her spiders, how long until shes a house full of reptiles again? because really, who thinks to ask a perspective buyer if they have convictions for animal abuse?

im on the fence about banning her, but to let her and her family (who we all know buy for her) use this forum to acquire more animals is completely unacceptable and a complete slap in the face to not only the people who's animals she killed, but the law itself.

one of the main reasons naming and shaming is not allowed on this forum is the potential for legal action, what position does enabling someone banned from keeping animals to purchase more put the forum in?
__________________
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #84 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2014, 03:15 AM
jaybott's Avatar
Super Citizen
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miss_ferret View Post
not to detract from anything else kathy said, but i feel this needs highlighting.

how many people just use this forum for the classifieds? and of those how many make a decision based on the feedback of the user? they will have no way of knowing that what they're being told is bull and that the animal will likely be dead relatively soon. people are already selling her spiders, how long until shes a house full of reptiles again? because really, who thinks to ask a perspective buyer if they have convictions for animal abuse?

im on the fence about banning her, but to let her and her family (who we all know buy for her) use this forum to acquire more animals is completely unacceptable and a complete slap in the face to not only the people who's animals she killed, but the law itself.

one of the main reasons naming and shaming is not allowed on this forum is the potential for legal action, what position does enabling someone banned from keeping animals to purchase more put the forum in?
Very valid point naming and shaming mmmm ok PAULINE PAULINE PAULINE PAULINE you're not wanted on this forum take you're evil reptile killing ways and DO ONE YOU EVIL .
There I feel better now
  #85 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2014, 06:54 AM
KathyM's Avatar
Premier Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 9,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkeda View Post
No, it keeps them in the hobby limelight and keeps new members to any part of the forum informed.

Not in any way knocking your entitlement to that view but how does it keep new members aware? There is absolutely nothing on her profile page to warn them and there are no warnings naming her in the sales sections. Unless that new person searches her name before buying they would be entirely oblivious. Her feedback is 100% positive as the rules state we are not allowed to give feedback to her on the rescue because she did not post a classifieds ad. There are also rules against naming amd shaming although I am grateful these have been fairly relaxed in this case. To get snakes or any other animals, all she has to do is answer ads here or elsewhere and point the person to her feedback page, where anyone reading would think she was a saint. She has the right to remove any comments she chooses from the public messages part of her profile. If a new member came on here today, they would only find out any information on her that would warn them off by pure fluke. The very least that should be done is her profile title under her name should say "convicted animal abuser" and we should be allowed to give negative feedback. I would not be surprised if she already had other usernames so to me there are no benefits to keeping her best known profile. She will hoard again amd you, me, the mods or the board at large seeing her public posts alone won't change that one bit. She lied to the courts and hid more snakes after being convicted. She is trying to reinvent that profile because she can, there's nothing negative on it to prevent her bullsh*tting to new members (see how she did do that on the inverts pictures thread). I fail to see any way that keeping her profile active will *prevent* animals getting bought and neglected. It'll all be in PM to people who only use the classifieds and feedback pages.
__________________
The artist formerly known as KathyM, wot is now Kathy A, but wot has to stick with KathyM so as not to confuse people


  #86 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2014, 06:59 AM
KathyM's Avatar
Premier Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 9,905
Default

As a side note I have liaised with mods on previous rescue cases and was told that members can be blocked from viewing or posting on the classifieds section. I am not sure if this has already been done with Pauline Wallace but if not, why not?
__________________
The artist formerly known as KathyM, wot is now Kathy A, but wot has to stick with KathyM so as not to confuse people


  #87 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2014, 07:54 AM
Mynki's Avatar
Gold Star Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,941
Default

Do people understand that the forum is privately owned and thus not a democracy? The poll will almost certainly have no bearing on her forum membership!

If you ban Pauline, where do you stop? Some people had their own snakes left with Pauline die, and didn't know about this for weeeks / months after they'd passed away. How responsible is that? Should they also be banned for neglect of their own pets?
Khonsu, Uromastyxman and Paul F like this.
  #88 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2014, 08:21 AM
Amber's Avatar
Premier Citizen
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,044
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Is there no kind of central blacklist of who not to buy from/ sell to?

Not just for people to add anyone they want to, but for people that are well known to be bad news for animals.

There should be such a thing really.
__________________

  #89 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2014, 08:57 AM
5 Star Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: worcester
Posts: 4,885
Default

If you ban Pauline, where do you stop? Some people had their own snakes left with Pauline die, and didn't know about this for weeeks / months after they'd passed away. How responsible is that? Should they also be banned for neglect of their own pets?[/QUOTE]

if people whose snakes she had were being told they were fine etc, how exactly is that them neglecting their snakes? As I understand she had peoples reps whilst they were movingetc etc, she more than likely lied to them as she did about alot of things. At the time no one had any reason to suspect what she was doing and how bad it was getting, to try and blame owners who thought she was trustworthy and knew what she was doing, is a blow very low below the belt. Do you not think the likes of kathym have lost enough due to her, without people making comments like that to rub salt in her wounds. Absolutely disgusting.
KathyM and Middleton Mouse like this.
__________________
the more i learn about people, the more i love my reps.

RIP little pedro.

3 boas - 1.1.0 , 1.1 fire skinks, 2 iggys, 3 boscs 1.2.0,
3 kings - 1.2.0, one female nile, 4 leopard geckos 1.3.0, 5 fish
4 rabbits 4 rats, 6 cats. 11 ferrets, 1 alaskan shepherd, 3 carpet pythons 2.1., 0.0.1 brb , one water dragon 1.0.0, 4 royal pythons 1.1.0, four corn snakes 2.2.0. 2 leos, 1 fire skink,
  #90 (permalink)  
Old 02-05-2014, 09:16 AM
Mynki's Avatar
Gold Star Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 6,941
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsi View Post

if people whose snakes she had were being told they were fine etc, how exactly is that them neglecting their snakes? As I understand she had peoples reps whilst they were movingetc etc, she more than likely lied to them as she did about alot of things. At the time no one had any reason to suspect what she was doing and how bad it was getting, to try and blame owners who thought she was trustworthy and knew what she was doing, is a blow very low below the belt. Do you not think the likes of kathym have lost enough due to her, without people making comments like that to rub salt in her wounds. Absolutely disgusting.

If you own an animal, you are responsible for it 100%. If you have someone else care for it, you are still responsible for it 100%.

If you have concerns about the person caring for your animal and fail to retrieve it and care for it, then you are responsible 100%. Ensuring that your animal is not being correctly cared for is absolutely disgusting.
Closed Thread

Tags
rules

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Against RFUK rules? MrFerretman6 Spiders and Inverts 5 13-12-2011 05:30 PM
Whats going off with the main page of rfuk, a change?? oakelm Forum Help, Suggestions & News 2 26-06-2010 05:59 PM



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2005 - 2011, Reptile Forums (RFUK™)