[POLL]Double standard moderation?

[Vod]

The reality is they have a long queue of reports to sort out every day and don't have time/interest to read dumpster fire threads like this one will inevitably become.

How would you know this? Are you, or were you ever staff?

He won't answer directly but he was never staff.

[pugman]

Few things:

- RegularHR got banned a year and a half ago, where I don't think signature bans were as common. Back then, mods considered either permaban, or no ban for the case of plagiarism. The signature bans have been more popular for the better part of the last year as far as I can tell, months after RegularHR got banned.

- Hacker's ban was more recent, so that increased his odds at getting his ban converted, I don't know how true both the above statements are, but this is how I see it(?).

- Also, most obvious thing: each case is different, since there are no solid rules written here. We all know the rules are bended when required, and only for those for which it is essential. Double Standards don't apply on moderation team, but they do apply everywhere else .

See these threads:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5144410.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5187016.0

[actmyname]

Is there double standards? But both options are yes?

There should be a no option.  How else to compare the results?

Well, if you don't vote then you are of the "no double standard" faction but the idea here is to propose that the two users have opposing results regarding their ban. If it isn't indicative of a double standard, then you can explain in a reply (as suchmoon as done so).

Comparing the cases of plagiarism and ICO bumping though...

The point stands that these same people were requesting he was not banned I initially and then begging for reinstatement.

Right... I'm not sure what the conflict of interest is here, though.

Polls ideally should be transparent or tallied up from replies so we can read the thoughts behind their vote.

That's why we have a thread! For replies, discussion, discourse.

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.

I have no problem with extending the signature ban indefinitely. In fact, to all users.

Directly financially dangerous individuals should be removed quickly especially senior or worse still DT members who have max leverage and assumed credibility.

Ah, and there lay the problem with the 100-wide monthly-cycling DT1 circle, which adds even more DT2 users to the table.

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 ).

I agree.

[bonesjonesreturns]

Burp.

Burp?

Best post you've ever made moronbozo.  Give the scammer supporter merits guys.  What ya waiting for?

The thread has established so far

1. The poll is one sided loaded garbage. There is no way to answer the question via the poll.
People have to guess how many people abstained since that was their only option for a not double standards vote

2. You may not be privy to other considerations that admin are factoring in

3. You dont care about financially motivated plagiarism because you and your pals want chitbitcity reinstated.

4. You are a scammer supporting turd who is gunning for hacker because he spoke out against your proven scammer boss lauda.




Do you wish to dispute of these points ??

I need to know before abstaining as my only option for a no double standards vote to your crappy poll.

Although I would likely not ban legends or heros that have not actually scammed people unless they are supporting or protecting scammers. Copy and paste If not financially motivated should be a warning. Financially motivated should be 5yr ban on sigs. Or their sig earnings donated to good causes or the forum

@actmyname

It appears we mostly agree on the important parts.

I would still keep to my opinion though that guessing how many abstained from voting or reading the entire thread is not sensible when he could have allowed a no double standards or no required action vote.

Other than that then I agree.