A STAFF MEMBER'S CONTRADICTIONS.

[Fwdxlsh]

This thread has been edited and captured via archive.is and two other capturing websites just in case it gets deleted.



https://archive.is/jyYN9

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1263464.0


https://archive.is/qvlSs  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1223138.60


Lauda, this post you made

Not exactly. It is much different when people are not part of a signature campaign. Those who are in them, tend to spam in order to get money which is wrong. However, those that are not part of one do not have such an incentive. It is much harder to judge and just because someone has low quality posts (again, no signature campaign) that doesn't necessarily mean that they are spamming. Not everyone can write and contribute as much as the next person. Note: I haven't looked into any individual listed here.

Does not match up with this post you made in regards to codishmumu's ban:

That person deserved it, probably even more. It's quite rare that we encounter someone who spams so much without a campaign, where 99.9% posts are useless. Anyone who comes here just to constantly make useless posts in the off-topic section is not welcome. This is a forum primarily focused on Bitcoin.

They were proven to post things that helped Bitcoin according to their business partner. Here are the posts. I have screencapped them just in case they get deleted. For now, the original links will do.




https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1223138.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1199258.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1211674.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1202719.0



UPDATE: Lauda even mentioned that he doesn't want a post restriction in this thread I posted:

https://archive.is/sMEdR

It is even more contradicting that they would post that when they said that they didn't appreciate someone who "spams so much". In that context, spam to Lauda meant posting too much. Wouldn't a post restriction prevent that?

Apparently, some other users have indirectly vouched for codishmumu. "minifrji", a somehow trusted user posted this:

https://archive.is/C0Nby

Accounts such as Gleb's and Phinnaeus's have a large amount of posts in Off Topic, but they have provided enough elsewhere to the forums to warrant it. Users that do nothing but spam in Off Topic shouldn't be here.

As proven in the links, she posts tons of useful ideas for the growth of Bitcoin and has been seen as vital. As minifriji just said, people can post a ton in off topic, but they should make some useful posts along the way. To confirm my research, I had made sure to make a poll asking people if people who post mostly in off topic should be banned, or if they want the off-topic forum deleted completely. Here's what the public voted:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1268829.0


I'd like to conclude my thoughts with this quote she posted in someone's thread in regards to the possibility of Bitcoin ever becoming mainstream. You can see the direct link to the quote here:

https://archive.is/sMlF4

It will be when I make my merchandise. Don't worry you guys. I'm gonna do everything in my power to make these items beautiful and jaw dropping to give wonderful advertisement for Satoshi's work. All you have to do is give me a chance. I love you all very much from the bottom of my heart because you've honestly given me concepts to believe in, and I'll honestly do anything to contribute to the growth of this currency.

One day, bitcoin will be worth one million USD each, and we can all enjoy our success together.

That sounds like someone who cares.


With that said, I'm just trying to ask for an explanation to Lauda's mismatched opinions. That's all. She's unbanned now, but I genuinely want an explanation before I let this go. Lauda might have to be stripped of staff label because it seems as though she/he is applying favorites based on whether or not they personally like the person. Apparently, codishmumu would never do that.

https://archive.is/PhbDR

 If we ever want to see bitcoin evolve, we gotta put personal feelings aside about others in the community, and work together to create ways to advance our business and make money to put food on the table for our families, and roofs over our heads for loved ones. It doesn't really make sense to not hire somebody who can perform a job perfectly to the highest extent just because you have personal hatred for them. Work life and personal life should be separate. People who do that are hurting their businesses.

Definitely professional.

[1714974006]

1714974006

[1714974006]

1714974006

[1714974006]

1714974006

[Fwdxlsh]

Also if it is so bad to post anything that is not relevant to Bitcoin then the off-topic forum actually shouldn't even be existing. It seems as though Lauda wants the off topic forum gone. I looked through their posts, but I didn't recall of them posting non Bitcoin related posts outside of the off-topic forum. Their posts seemed to actually be marked properly.

Somebody put this on my trust via neutral rating.


https://archive.is/ekIkA

[botany]

The bar for post quality is higher when you are wearing a paid signature.
This does not mean that people who do not wear paid signatures do not get banned for spamming. They do. Codishmumu seems to be one of them.

[shorena]

-snip-
Somebody put this on my trust via neutral rating.

https://archive.is/QGBuk

One of your threads there is enough for me thanks.

[Fwdxlsh]

The bar for post quality is higher when you are wearing a paid signature.
This does not mean that people who do not wear paid signatures do not get banned for spamming. They do. Codishmumu seems to be one of them.

I just read through their posts, and most of them were not really irrelevant to the topics they posted on.

Spamming by definition on this site (according to Lauda) is posting low-content or irrelevant posts. But then by that logic on terms of "low content" or posting so much in the off-topic, shouldn't Gleb Gamow be banned....?


They've been here longer than she has. Also, what is low content to one person might not be considered low content to another, so this is kind of hard to decide on whether or not that should ever constitute into a ban.

[Lauda]

I feel like this was not really necessary. Why are you calling me out? Usually when I post, I post from my own perspective and I'm not representing the forum as a staff member (unless it is something really related to my contribution here or forum policy/etc.). You could have just sent me a PM. In both cases I was stating my opinion as a member of this forum. Did you read the fine print:"Note: I haven't looked into any individual listed here."? I also feel like this does not fit in Meta.

The bar for post quality is higher when you are wearing a paid signature.
This does not mean that people who do not wear paid signatures do not get banned for spamming. They do. Codishmumu seems to be one of them.

This also explains it.

Also, what is low content to one person might not be considered low content to another, so this is kind of hard to decide on whether or not that should ever constitute into a ban.

23. When deciding if a user has broken the rules, the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules

It comes down who is handling the situation. Some hate spam and have set a higher bar like me, while other tolerate more.
I'm not exactly sure what you think is unclear here and what you want me to explain? FYI I do not have the power to ban any of those members.

[Fwdxlsh]

I feel like this was not really necessary. Why are you calling me out? Usually when I post, I post from my own perspectivthat d I'm not representing the forum as a staff member unless it is something really related to my contribution here or forum policy/etc.). You could have just sent me a PM. In both cases I was stating my opinion as a member of this forum. Did you read the fine print:"Note: I haven't looked into any individual listed here."? I also feel like this does not fit in Meta.

The bar for post quality is higher when you are wearing a paid signature.
This does not mean that people who do not wear paid signatures do not get banned for spamming. They do. Codishmumu seems to be one of them.

This also explains it.

Also, what is low content to one person might not be considered low content to another, so this is kind of hard to decide on whether or not that should ever constitute into a ban.

23. When deciding if a user has broken the rules, the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules

It comes down who is handling the situation. Some hate spam and have set a higher bar like me, while other tolerate more.
I'm not exactly sure what you think is unclear here and what you want me to explain? FYI I do not have the power to ban any of those members.

I think it goes without saying that you are. That is like telling someone that you didn't know it was against forum rules to reveal personal documents of somebody without their consent on a Bitcoin forum when Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous, and does not require you to reveal your true identity. We should be able to assume that we wouldn't have to tell you something that is obvious.

If I do that then no one will get an opportunity to see that a forum moderator is posting mismatched opinions. This community deserves the right to know. If anything, there should be a line of selection between moderators and normal users by not having the moderators post as if they were part of the community and not staff. AKA a higher rank than the community. If you post like you're part of the community, we won't see you as an authority figure. A person who is leading that example is EAL, I believe. I barely see him post in the forums as if he were a regular member and not staff.


That type of rule is too flexible to the point that it can easily be abused. When I become moderator, might as well ban everyone that posts about cookies, because it is my interpretation of the rules that posting cookies is against ToS, and the everyday laws in general.

[Lauda]

I think it goes without saying that you are. That is like telling someone that you didn't know it was against forum rules to reveal personal documents of somebody without their consent on a Bitcoin forum when Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous, and does not require you to reveal your true identity.

If I do that then no one will get an opportunity to see that a forum moderator is posting mismatched opinions. This community deserves the right to know. If anything, there should be a line of selection between moderators and normal users by not having the moderators post as if they were part of the community and not staff. AKA a higher rank than the community. If you post like you're part of the community, we won't see you as an authority figure. A person who is leading that example is EAL, I believe. I barely see him post in the forums as if he were a regular member and not staff.

Are you trying to imply that once someone becomes a staff member they should stop being part of the community and rarely ever post? Some post more frequently while others don't. It is a choice, not a rule defined by the forum. Again, I'm asking you what you think is exactly mismatched here?

That type of rule is too flexible to the point that it can easily be abused. When I become moderator, might as well ban everyone that posts about cookies, because it is my interpretation of the rules that posting cookies is against ToS, and the everyday laws in general.

You obviously don't understand how things work here and I'm starting to question the intentions behind this thread. Moderators can't ban users. Besides, if you did that the admin would revert everything and you would be demoted if not punished.

[Fwdxlsh]

I think it goes without saying that you are. That is like telling someone that you didn't know it was against forum rules to reveal personal documents of somebody without their consent on a Bitcoin forum when Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous, and does not require you to reveal your true identity.

If I do that then no one will get an opportunity to see that a forum moderator is posting mismatched opinions. This community deserves the right to know. If anything, there should be a line of selection between moderators and normal users by not having the moderators post as if they were part of the community and not staff. AKA a higher rank than the community. If you post like you're part of the community, we won't see you as an authority figure. A person who is leading that example is EAL, I believe. I barely see him post in the forums as if he were a regular member and not staff.

Are you trying to imply that once someone becomes a staff member they should stop being part of the community? Some post more frequently while others don't. It is a choice, not a rule defined by the forum. Again, I'm asking you what you think is exactly mismatched here?

That type of rule is too flexible to the point that it can easily be abused. When I become moderator, might as well ban everyone that posts about cookies, because it is my interpretation of the rules that posting cookies is against ToS, and the everyday laws in general.

You obviously don't understand how things work here and I'm starting to question the intentions behind this thread. Moderators can't ban users. Besides, if you did that the admin would revert everything and you would be demoted if not punished.

Try not to deny claims when it is very obvious that my claims are true. I gave you your mismatched opinions.


They're right there in the OP. At this point, it is best to not argue with me, and just issue a public apology.