• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

"We do not believe you are a good match for our community"

Status
Not open for further replies.

JinxGlider

Sugar-Glider. Vet Tech and Animal Lover.
Actually, I work at an animal hospital and we have and will turn you away for being a pain in the ass. So ...people aren't required to offer you any service if you act like an entitled monster.
 
D

Deleted member 93706

Guest
I was banned from the unofficial r/headphones Discord server for being a furry!
 
D

Deleted member 93706

Guest
Actually, I think the only problem I see is that Frank Gulotta is a troll.

So, we all move on, don't feed the troll.

I think that Frank Gulotta is much like who I was a year or two ago - before I accepted the inevitable downfalls of society. No sense in trying to save that which cannot be saved. If he spent more time developing himself and helping those around him, he would probably be a happier person and have a better chance at making positive changes in the world.
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
Actually, I work at an animal hospital and we have and will turn you away for being a pain in the ass. So ...people aren't required to offer you any service if you act like an entitled monster.
Not sure what kind of disastrous hospital would leave animals suffering just because the owner is a bit rude, so I have to assume by "being a pain in the ass" you mean violating TOS? because it's kinda you know, what I'm talking about here. Banning for violating TOS is fine. But trying to pretend like your business is just a private little treehouse whenever convenient might even be illegal.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Not sure what kind of disastrous hospital would leave animals suffering just because the owner is a bit rude, so I have to assume by "being a pain in the ass" you mean violating TOS? because it's kinda you know, what I'm talking about here. Banning for violating TOS is fine. But trying to pretend like your business is just a private little treehouse whenever convenient might even be illegal.

Frank go home you're drunk.
 

Lucyfur

United forever in friendship and labour
Banned
Not sure what kind of disastrous hospital would leave animals suffering just because the owner is a bit rude, so I have to assume by "being a pain in the ass" you mean violating TOS? because it's kinda you know, what I'm talking about here. Banning for violating TOS is fine. But trying to pretend like your business is just a private little treehouse whenever convenient might even be illegal.
*laughs in "ItS jUsT a CaKe~"*


^(Again this is satire because I dont think that actual businesses that provide a service should be able to deny service in the particular realm in which that quote is about)^
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
Then shouldn't they add "we reserve a right to kick you out if we don't like you"?

While not openly stated, in terms of US Websites, it's a given that all members of a public open platform generally accept.

That said, I HIGHLY doubt someone would kick a member for "no reason". That member did something whether it's posting innapropriate content or sending questionable notes to people, or displaying other questionable behavior. Based on the message you have, I'd be willing to bet that it's a content issue. I've seen those messages mentioned when they ban...uh...certain unwelcome types of artists, creators, and supporters of said art types. I don't think I need to say more than that.

In any case, if what you're wanting is legal advice, a forum isn't the place to ask for it. Unless in reality you're not interested in legality, and instead you're looking for some spicy drama due to bring angry and defensive of your friend.

None of us work for FA (except those who do). If you want more info on their stance, ask a staff member. If you want more official legal information, contact a lawyer. If you want drama...well, have fun posting here I suppose.
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
I'm baffled that anyone would defend such bullshit, we don't accept it from any other service provider

Actually...this is pretty regular in any business in the US. At least, any "privately owned" business. FA falls under that bracket I believe...

Big cooperation businesses or places such as hospitals, where they focus on providing a service in spite of circumstances over anything dictated by one singular owner are a different story. For obvious reasons.

But yeah essentially if it's a singular owner, they can do whatever they want with the money, time, and effort they put into the service they provide. Such is part of the freedom to own and run a business.

This can be a good thing (such as denying the nasties), or a bad thing (such as denying minorities). The point is, that's just how it is, and it can work for or against the people at times.
 
Last edited:

pilgrimfromoblivion

DEEP IN THE JEANS SHE'S WEARING
Ding-ding-ding, I think we might have a winner here, Johnny! <giggle>
I don't even get why he even kept going. I'm baffled how the whole conversation didn't end at their ability to stop someone from using their service whenever and however they feel like. There's nothing that can be done about it.
 

Punji

Vaskebjørn
There is really no need for dogpiling here guys. Furries of all people should be against bullying the most.

My understand is that yes, a private company is entirely allowed to deny service to anyone it chooses. Do we really need to let tempers fly and gang up on someone?
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
There is really no need for dogpiling here guys. Furries of all people should be against bullying the most.

My understand is that yes, a private company is entirely allowed to deny service to anyone it chooses. Do we really need to let tempers fly and gang up on someone?

I feel like there's a difference between ganging up on someone and actively responding to something they said with an opinion.
I don't think anyone here feels negatively towards OP, or wants any harm or ill will for them, but this is a forum and they did start a "controversial" thread so....responses will happen. x3
 

Punji

Vaskebjørn
I feel like there's a difference between ganging up on someone and actively responding to something they said with an opinion.
I don't think anyone here feels negatively towards OP, or wants any harm or ill will for them, but this is a forum and they did start a "controversial" thread so....responses will happen. x3
There certainly is I think! But a number of responses in this thread have gone a bit further than merely responding, and I don't think we as a community should just let that happen.
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
There certainly is I think! But a number of responses in this thread have gone a bit further than merely responding, and I don't think we as a community should just let that happen.

Yeah I haven't read every single response so I'll leave that as it is.
 

Connor J. Coyote

Well-Known Member
Actually, I work at an animal hospital and we have and will turn you away for being a pain in the ass. So ...people aren't required to offer you any service if you act like an entitled monster.
Well, yes and no - (usually, a "general service" that's available to the general public) can certainly have that attitude, (and take that kind of policy) - as the old saying goes "we reserve the right to refuse service".

But, there are some "essential services" which service providers cannot (and should not) refuse to provide people; and so - it could be viewed as a bit of a "slippery slope" also - when we allow service providers too much leeway in refusing services to someone based on them being perceived as "too difficult".

Just imagine - if a hospital, the Fire Department, the paramedics, or.... (even the local pharmacy) were to have that policy, and take that kind of attitude....... in those cases, being refused services can be potentially lethal.

And so - providers do have a right to "refuse", certainly; but..... there's also limits to that (legally) that places limits on the scope of that ability to refuse.
------------------------
As far as the OP's concern though - I'd say that anyone who was told (what he heard) by an operator on this website (on here in particular) must've really screwed up in some way hugely - to have that sort of refusal given to them.

But.... unlike hospitals or pharmacies - website providers *do* have the option for showing someone the door, when it's required (or necessary). And thus - "refusing" services on a social media platform (such as this) is certainly the entitlement of the operators, I think.... no matter how flawed we may think of the reasons.

But the good news is - there's *tons* of other platforms out there, independent of one another, and so - one can simply go elsewhere, to find the right platform for them..... and this is especially true if the removal was based on ideology, political beliefs, or by exercising certain speech - that the operators of one platform may find undesirable, and even offensive.
 

JinxGlider

Sugar-Glider. Vet Tech and Animal Lover.
Everything within reason of course. We don't turn away people all willy nilly but if the animals not in an emergency situation and you are being abusive or refusing to do what the government thinks is a necessary service, then yes we send you on your way. There is indeed a slippery slope and we take our own fair amount of abuse. There is a reason veterinary medicine has one of the highest suicide rates of any field. You can't just behave any way you want and still expect people to help you. I definitely wasn't trying to dog pile but you can definitely refuse service to people was my point. Especially an online forum site. Not here to defend myself, or our hospital. We have been open for years and have many loyal clients, with new clients every day, they know we practice good medicine. OP was pretty aggro so I really wasn't trying to keep poking the bear. Hence me going quiet. I don't know this person or what they think of me and I'm not terribly concerned with it tbh. He posted an inflammatory post and pounced on everyone who answered. He just wanted to be heard. I think we can all debate the bullying side of it. If you start an open debate, prepare to be disagreed with.
 
Last edited:

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
Everything within reason of course. We don't turn away people all willy nilly but if the animals not in an emergency situation and you are being abusive or refusing to do what the government thinks is a necessary service, then yes we send you on your way.
Yeah so yeah we agree then. But that leaves me wondering why you thought your experience contradicted my point
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
I want an ice cream cone.
 

Connor J. Coyote

Well-Known Member
@AndyG8100 Well, I understand your points my friend, and I'm certainly not criticizing you specifically, in any way; (or - anyone else on here for that matter), with my posting. I'm not really taking any position - (one way or the other) with the OP's repertoire (on this thread), either.... as - how other people may (or my not) respond to others (and interact with them) is usually their responsibility alone. ☺

But.... my general focus on here, and my point though - (and, what I'm hopefully trying to get anyone who reads it to see) is that - whenever services are "refused" to anyone - simply because they're being deemed as "too difficult" (by the provider on the other side of the counter) - can in some circumstances, be not only un-professional, but also... even lethal, and downright dangerous, (in some cases).

And so - refusing to provide certain "essential services" is not only un-ethical, but even - illegal to do, (as it should be). But..... I also fully agree with you - that no one should be forced to take any abuse (by a client or a customer) that's deemed excessive and just makes everyone's job more difficult to do. (And in those cases), certain non-essential providers can certainly exercise their stated policy when they - "reserve the right to refuse services".

Thus - I agree with your statement that "you can't just behave any way you want and still expect people to help you" (which is very true also). But - in regards to "essential services" like I mentioned above - there's an asterisk (professionally and legally) next to that refusal policy; as in some cases, being refused services may cost someone their life.

Which would not only be un-professional (and illegal), but even - criminal, in some cases; where the life of someone was lost (or placed in jeopardy) simply because an "essential provider" refused to perform the duties of his or her job with someone they felt was being "too difficult" or was simply "undesirable to deal with".
 
Last edited:

Trevorbluesquirrel

Well-Known Member
Their be a difference in what you can do in public vs. what you can do in private!

In private, you're free to discriminate as much as you like, because you have the guarantee of ''FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATATION!''

If you wanted to start a Dragon Furries Only Cake Club, you could do that!

Its not good to discriminate, but if you really want to, knock yourself out - please!

Now Businesses are privately owned, but their required to follow the ''PUBLIC ACCOMADATION LAW'', meaning that a business is open to the public!

I mean, can a business refuse you service because you're blond, or Chinese, or Cyclops!?

Don't we have anti discrimination laws to prevent that!?

Why would a business want to turn away paying customers, after all!?

Anyway, since a free use website is privately owned, they have the guarantee of ''FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATATION!''

Not legally illegal, but spiritually illegal, leading to very bad karma!
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
Their be a difference in what you can do in public vs. what you can do in private!

In private, you're free to discriminate as much as you like, because you have the guarantee of ''FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATATION!''

If you wanted to start a Dragon Furries Only Cake Club, you could do that!

Its not good to discriminate, but if you really want to, knock yourself out - please!

Now Businesses are privately owned, but their required to follow the ''PUBLIC ACCOMADATION LAW'', meaning that a business is open to the public!

I mean, can a business refuse you service because you're blond, or Chinese, or Cyclops!?

Don't we have anti discrimination laws to prevent that!?

Why would a business want to turn away paying customers, after all!?

Anyway, since a free use website is privately owned, they have the guarantee of ''FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATATION!''

Not legally illegal, but spiritually illegal, leading to very bad karma!
I would even argue it's not only paying customers, any given website is worthless without its users. If you have any kind of semi-decent audience, you make them money without them paying you by gnerating clicks, and suddenly the lame "you should be grateful they even allow you to sleep in that dirty corner" guilt-tripping line is a lot less effective.

And you start expecting at least some respect, especially if the website is not that great in terms of management/interface and its only real perk is having the biggest amount of users out there. Even then, FA is still a relatively small site. Not at all unique or irreplaceable (or rather it's unique for bad reasons).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top