I'd rather expect people like joehoe, DannyHammilton or Death&Taxes be added to DefaultTrust, who are actually respected by the community and does not fight to hold their seat.
Danny and Deathandtaxes only have DefaultTrust in their trust list, wouldn't be much point in adding them. It would just be a symbolic gesture. |
|
|
|
|
There's been ~50 deleted replies in that thread already, but keep freaking out and acting like no mods are doing anything, that's productive too.
|
|
|
|
|
Good stuff I see by looking through my Movie listings:
Blade Runner
The Running Man
Spaceballs
The Abyss
The Thing
The Last Starfighter
Event Horizon
Star Wars
Star Trek (Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!)
Terminator
ET
Robocop
Mad Max
Tron
Predator
Escape From New York
12 Monkeys
Stargate
Contact
The Fifth Element (not old school but 1997)
Dark City (1998)
|
|
|
|
I think the bots only create the accounts. I can't see a bot making any sort of constructive comments, not that the humans controlling these accounts are much better. Most of the time I can't tell if they are puppets or just really dumb, but they are all definitely human.
The thing about dumb posts is; this is a very good place to learn. If they are just plain stupid they need to be here, and shouldn't be penalized. Obviously, if everything they post is useless they need some guidance.
I worked in a vintage fashion boutique years ago, everyone there was kind of a snob, and they treated poorly dressed customers very badly. I never got that line of thinking. The slobs are a perfect canvas, you can change their whole life by tidying their look. I could and did and won many loyal customers.
I don't think you're talking about the same thing everyone else is, the bots are most definitely bots, and the posts are clearly made by a bot. |
|
|
|
|
Ideally I would like to see thumbnail images, where the image will show up as a thumbnail, say 200x200, but when you click on the image it will expand it to the size appropriate for your browser/window settings, and when you click on the header (which would be a black bar at the top 5-10% of the thumbnail image that details the original image dimensions/size) it will expand it to full size regardless of tables.
This reduces a lot of the "ugh what size should I make my image, don't want to break tables but some people may want to see details you can't see at lower resolution". Just post it as a [timg] instead and let the user decide what they want to see.
|
|
|
|
Community. It's an ok show. The good was great, but there was a lot of misses with the hits. Lot of good gifs come from it though.   |
|
|
|
and said, "I'd recommend removing Tecshare" with no underlying threat or anything else. There was not a threat of removal from Default trust by Theymos to Canaryinthemine or myself.
But isn't this kind of a nudge in that direction? That statement alone would linger in your mind before you even took a look at the meta thread that was sent from Thymos. It could be said that this aided a decision before facts were even placed in front of you. But but but.... If Theymos (your "employer") recommends you basically have to obey... Right right? The whole premise is ridiculous to begin with and while it's good that SaltySpitoon came out to explicitly state this it is ridiculous that they had too.... Sad thing is he has said it before, multiple times. Tecshare ignores it all and says the same thing over and over, and by now most have given up responding to it (incident in question was almost 3 months ago, and he attacks those who do). This style of argument is an informal fallacy commonly known as proof by assertion, typically used by politicians, lawyers, and ad agencies. Sadly it is fairly effective, since most of us are kept busy with the forum. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertionI don't think Tecshare is doing it intentionally though, maybe he is, I don't know. I think he just has such a high opinion of himself (wish search wasn't down, I've seen some doozies that make this obvious) that he can't bear to think someone may have chosen to remove him from their trust list, and instead chooses to believe it's a collaborative effort by *the man* to damage him. I've seen it many times in various forms, this type of denial is kind of sad to see. |
|
|
|
the sig campaign I am part of offers me the option to sig and PM spam, but I only use the sig option because; I compare the sig to a billboard [passive advertizing] but spam PMs to telemarketers [intrusive, annoying advertizing])
PM in this context is not personal messages to other members, but the personal text in your profile, it will show up below the avatar. |
|
|
|
I didn't made up my mind. Please read the thread.
Direct question: Did you delete the poll posts ?
Why? If I say yes, you're just going to focus on me instead of the issue. If I say no, then you are one step closer, through the process of elimination, to finding who did do it so you can pester them. I'm not looking for a witch hunt. I suggested reasonable solution. Moving the threads from Trash to Acrhival per Theymos guideline and let the poll continue. What's wrong with this ? That's up to Philip, not you. He expressed some discontent with how it was going. You just skewed the poll. I wish you had asked. <snip> |
|
|
|
I didn't made up my mind. Please read the thread.
Direct question: Did you delete the poll posts ?
Why? If I say yes, you're just going to focus on me instead of the issue. If I say no, then you are one step closer, through the process of elimination, to finding who did do it so you can pester them. |
|
|
|
I'm not trying to troll just wondered the timeline of what happened for it to be removed. I know this forum is a place I do enjoy, and it is a "Privilege" not a "Right" to be able to use the site. I just wish on a incident like this the community was not so in the dark.
And I'm not saying you are. Yes, I think that plain deletion of these polls without any comment from the mods was kind of brutal. However, after theymos' answer, I would assume good faith from the mods, i.e. not make it a big deal, and just move forward. Even if Dogie were indeed the one reporting philipma1957's polls, 1) it's not public information, and 2) it doesn't really make any difference, does it? I will do this last post before I let it cool down and see how it plays out. I am not wanting to become a troll. If you will read my whole last post I ask for transparency, please re-read my previous comment. I have not said a name and will not, as again i can just suspect. I do think it is important on how it happened, this is why I think being open is easier. If you read "Post the polls in Archival, and lock all of them. Then link to the polls from one topic in Hardware." Why were threads not moved to there instead of being deleted? Because spam gets deleted. If you want specific action like this taken you need to work it out with a moderator beforehand. Not just post it and hope they deal with it the way you hope they will. Those threads contained poll questions and forum members took the time to answer them. They weren't spam. Granted, Philip posted them in the wrong place. Can I get answers to my questions? I'm getting strong sense of coverups and excuses after the fact for a very brutal / hostile mod action directed to hurt us due to the poll results. No, because you've already made up your mind, and I don't care enough to try and change it. Maybe someone else will, maybe they won't. |
|
|
|
I'm not trying to troll just wondered the timeline of what happened for it to be removed. I know this forum is a place I do enjoy, and it is a "Privilege" not a "Right" to be able to use the site. I just wish on a incident like this the community was not so in the dark.
And I'm not saying you are. Yes, I think that plain deletion of these polls without any comment from the mods was kind of brutal. However, after theymos' answer, I would assume good faith from the mods, i.e. not make it a big deal, and just move forward. Even if Dogie were indeed the one reporting philipma1957's polls, 1) it's not public information, and 2) it doesn't really make any difference, does it? I will do this last post before I let it cool down and see how it plays out. I am not wanting to become a troll. If you will read my whole last post I ask for transparency, please re-read my previous comment. I have not said a name and will not, as again i can just suspect. I do think it is important on how it happened, this is why I think being open is easier. If you read "Post the polls in Archival, and lock all of them. Then link to the polls from one topic in Hardware." Why were threads not moved to there instead of being deleted? Because spam gets deleted. If you want specific action like this taken you need to work it out with a moderator beforehand. Not just post it and hope they deal with it the way you hope they will. |
|
|
|
I know, he probably should be unbanned but I've yet to see anyone be unbanned here.
That's because those who post in meta, and those who get unbanned/durations shortened are typically 2 very different kinds of people. People who most in meta tend to be the sort who don't understand why they were banned, don't agree with the ban, don't agree with the rules, want to pretend they didn't do anything and gather public sympathy, etc. All these types are likely repeat offenders for various reasons, and lifting their ban early will not help, only reinforce that they shouldn't care about the rules. I've even unbanned sig spammers before because they apologized sincerely, and were honest and upfront about what they did and why, and I can respect that. People rarely post about being unbanned or durations being shortened. Similar to customer service, you typically only hear about the "bad" experiences. It's one chance and your banned for life for the most part.
You have to be a fairly serious offender to get permanently banned for the first offense. Third, fourth, or fifth is more common, not counting spammers/malware/habitual trolls. Edit: That said, I wouldn't say modifying bans is common either, if it were common one would probably want to review their ban policies, but it isn't rare either. Also not saying posting in Meta is a bad thing, just in general. For example the arguments here are that it isn't really a giveaway, they have no value, they *had* to do a giveaway, etc. If I were to now reduce the ban duration (it isn't permanent) that would be counterproductive, though to be fair it isn't the person in question making those posts. |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if they have no value or not, it's not a mistake. The rules are about curbing the spam that results from giveaways. Altcoin giveaways are not allowed. Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections. From now on, posting or replying to such threads could result in being banned. Existing threads will be locked.
Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your threads. You can't offer to pay people who post their addresses, usernames, etc. You can do giveaways off-site and link to the giveaway page in a thread, but you can't give people any bonus for replying to your thread.
Similar threads are already restricted to Games and Rounds in the non-altcoin sections, but the giveaway-related post volume is so high in the altcoin sections that I've decided to just ban them entirely here.
I honestly don't know how this can be more clear. |
|
|
|
|
Open proxies were banned from registering before, at least you have a choice to use it now. Open proxies are abused too much, try to sign up on any other decent sized forum using Tor and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Commander is a good strategy game, it's more heavy on the base building, and more large scale battles. Lot to learn about it though, how to setup patrols, rally points, how to use transports effectively, templates, etc. Fun game though.
Starcraft 2 is good too.
|
|
|
|
I left TECSHARE negative feedback because I felt he was acting in a manner that called the accuracy of his judgment into question. Given the several witch hunt threads TECSHARE seems to be running, I don't think this is unfair of me, and would be interested to hear disagreement on this point.
IMO a neutral feedback is more appropriate. Poor judgement doesn't mean untrustworthy. Someone who has 'poor judgement', throws tantrums can be trustworthy if they honors all their deals and keeps their word. Agreed. You have demonstrated ... willingness to abuse trust for personal gain
What if they also slander you without evidence to back up their claims? EDIT: This is just as serious an accusation as anything else being discussed here. I take my reputation seriously, and request you provide proof of me "demonstrating" willingness to abuse the forum for my personal gain. Without such proof, I'd like to ask the slanderous comment be removed. You're deflecting. That was a response to undeserved negative feedback, saying it's now deserved because of the response to it is a failure in logic. |
|
|
|
I am, in fact, not affected in any fashion by the negative reviews left on my profile, because any user who views them is able to uncover a vast amount of information surrounding the reviews in question, as well as a vast amount of information surrounding my own behaviour on this forum, right back to the start, and come to their own conclusions. This is because you have not received any negative ratings from anyone on the default trust list. They are "untrusted" Finally -- and I do not presume to speak on behalf of CITM -- but his rating of me is based on past dealings between the two of us and it would be an abuse of the trust system for him to remove it because he feels I am abusing the trust system  I don't think you understand how the trust system works. You are not on default trust list because CITM gave you positive feedback, you are on it because he added you to his trust list. The two are suppose to be very different and distinct actions (however for CITM they are one and the same) I missed that, along with the other post it's obvious he doesn't understand it, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it abuse. I agree with koshgel. Giving someone negative trust for disagreeing with you sets a dangerous precedent and degrades the value of the trust system overall (especially if you are part of DefaultTrust)
The situation with WC has been unique to say the least, threads cluttered with alt accounts and shills. To say that Nubbins is tarnishing the reputation of honest users is a bit much. There has been some deceit from WC and Nubbins has tried to caution new/old customers to look closer at what they are actually purchasing. He has certainly been aggressive in his methods.
I think Nubbins should be educated on how his trust ratings are affecting users not confirmed to be scammers before being removed
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
