If you vote at all you are saying there is double standards
Well, exactly... isn't that the point?
To facilitate the same output given identical outputs? In order to inspect a system for reliable processes that hold minimal bias given that inputs are individuals.
ChiBitCTy already got a signature ban, IIRC. They are also an avid collector and most of their time is spent in the Collectibles section, like most people who participate in the sub-board.
Brevity would do you some good, the post is a little tough to follow and laced with rhetoric.
Is there double standards? But both options are yes?
There should be a no option. How else to compare the results?
Votes vs guess how many read the poll?
Or
Votes yes vs votes no?
How to see what the opinion is. I meant meta opinion is hardly worth a damn but still it is interesting to compare not guess.
Okay, thanks for your hints and good information. It is nice to know he has sig ban also.
The point stands that these same people were requesting he was not banned I initially and then begging for reinstatement..
Polls ideally should be transparent or tallied up from replies so we can read the thoughts behind their vote.
It is conceivable that admin have information they do not wish to divulge to the forum for their decisions.
I like to see sig bans and long ones for financially motivated plagiarism If people will post without a sig for 5yrs then I feel they are worth a other chance. Scammers should be get no second chance. They pose a direct financial threat. Real enthusiasts dont need to be paid to contribute here.
The double standards more worrying or if not double standards just more of a crazy standards is allowing proven scammers and trust abusers in default trust 1 and worry about people who copy their Twitter or Facebook posts to the forum on their projects thread.
Directly financially dangerous individuals should be removed quickly especially senior or worse still DT members who have max leverage and assumed credibility.
Politics is fun but the forums strength is in a transparent, fair and safe environment. Where each members finances and free speech are protected to the optimal level. Start with those posing the most serious threat to those thing first.
I actually think free speech is more important than the financial aspect. People can protect their own finances to a large degree the admin is more responsible for ensuring free speech here
Each senior member should have a full in depth and fair appraisal of their net contribution here so no 2 cases are identical
Therefore a double standard is impossible to say ( in the cases of non proven scammers anyway where net contributions are not a mitigating factor ).