seriously 14 day bann????

[wtfppl]

making this post because i guess im allowed to only make a post in meta if other account is banned. so i joined the dadice campaign on my yahoo62278 account and got paid for 40% of my 100 posts. 1 liners considered spam, and im not saying some posts couldnt be considered spammy. what i am saying is all posts were on topic, i wasnt posting +1s n bumps or any of that shit.

well today goes by and i made a comment in a thread i made about not being banned for spam, it said basically if my posts were all spam then why am i not banned. and boom 1 of the mods took it upon himself to just throw his power around and give me a 14 day ban. fine ill serve your goddamn ban and deal with the penalties.

heres an idea for ya though, instead of punishing users for trying to make a goddamn dollar, why not punish the freaking campaign managers that basically have users spam the fuck outta the place? 100 posts a week, hmm im pretty sure ppl are gonna try n get those posts any way possible.(bit-x, dadice) if you want reasonable posting then dont have unreasonable requests in the campaigns. sure 100 posts in a week is possible, but from how many users? not very many.

again i stand by the stance that not all my posts were spammy, maybe 20-30 in total of 103. i think a mod read my post and decided to throw his power around. im gonna assume badbear(might be wrong) since he posted in the dadice thread shortly after ndnhc commented on my post.

i also wanna know how ppl like marcotheminer get 10 day bans for basically the same as me and i get 14 days? no justice here at all. candy was thrown in my face and im punished for trying to get it.

[hilariousandco]

heres an idea for ya though, instead of punishing users for trying to make a goddamn dollar, why not punish the freaking campaign managers that basically have users spam the fuck outta the place? 100 posts a week, hmm im pretty sure ppl are gonna try n get those posts any way possible.(bit-x, dadice) if you want reasonable posting then dont have unreasonable requests in the campaigns. sure 100 posts in a week is possible, but from how many users? not very many.

Why punish the sig campaign managers? I agree they should be doing more to curb spam but it's the users who choose to abuse it so you cannot possibly pass the blame on to them. Should the owner of an all You Can Eat restaurant be punished because a greedy pig comes in an eats all the food he possibly can then pukes all over the place, or is that the greedy pigs fault? I make 100 posts a week no problem and there are many others who make much more than that but of course there are always people who try make as many as they can thus diluting their quality but that is a decision they make and have to deal with the consequences.

i also wanna know how ppl like marcotheminer get 10 day bans for basically the same as me and i get 14 days? no justice here at all.

Marco was banned for sending a few unsolicited PMs not spamming the forum.

candy was thrown in my face and im punished for trying to get it.

Learn some restraint then. It's perfectly ok for people to make many posts as long as they put some effort in. If people start slacking and getting lazy then they'll probably get punished but I don't see why everyone should be just because of a few.

[wtfppl]

heres an idea for ya though, instead of punishing users for trying to make a goddamn dollar, why not punish the freaking campaign managers that basically have users spam the fuck outta the place? 100 posts a week, hmm im pretty sure ppl are gonna try n get those posts any way possible.(bit-x, dadice) if you want reasonable posting then dont have unreasonable requests in the campaigns. sure 100 posts in a week is possible, but from how many users? not very many.

Why punish the sig campaign managers? I agree they should be doing more to curb spam but it's the users who choose to abuse it so you cannot possibly pass the blame on to them. Should the owner of an all You Can Eat restaurant be punished because a greedy pig comes in an eats all the food he possibly can then pukes all over the place, or is that the greedy pigs fault? I make 100 posts a week no problem and there are many others who make much more than that but of course there are always people who try make as many as they can thus diluting their quality but that is a decision they make and have to deal with the consequences.

i also wanna know how ppl like marcotheminer get 10 day bans for basically the same as me and i get 14 days? no justice here at all.

Marco was banned for sending a few unsolicited PMs not spamming the forum.

candy was thrown in my face and im punished for trying to get it.

Learn some restraint then. It's perfectly ok for people to make many posts as long as they put some effort in. If people start slacking and getting lazy then they'll probably get punished but I don't see why everyone should be just because of a few.

look through the yahoo62278 accounts posts. 14 day ban is a bit extreme IMO. as i stated im sure a few posts were spammy, but damn sure not 60 and damn sure not enough to warrant a 14 day ban. im requesting this ban be lifted as if you look at my history ive never done 1 thing wrong til now apparently

[wtfppl]

am i allowed to keep replying in this post. dont want your next ban to be for evasion. ive never been in any trouble here and im  not trying to start now

[hilariousandco]

You're allowed to reply in Meta just not outside of it during your ban.

[master-P]

Based on what I've been seeing the staff/mods are really working on cracking down more aggressively on sig campaign spammers and account farmers. Perhaps that's why your ban was a bit more extreme.

Here's a recent post by Badbear in another thread:

Typical sig spammer ban duration escalation is now 14 days, 60 days, permanent. If it's someone I truly feel just needs a warning it will be 7, 30, permanent. This needs to stop so I'm going to be much more aggressive. If 8t doesn't work there's only 2 options left, and neither are good.

I do not unban accounts because they were sold. Many accounts being sold are on their second or third offense.

OP and all his alts are banned.

So it seems like they've bumped up the minimum sentence to 14 days from whatever it was prior.

[wtfppl]

@hilariousandco is it possible for you to go through the last 100ish posts on the yahoo62278 account and make a case to badbear to lift the ban? im not refuting that a few post were spammy but im not also agreeing that 60 posts were spam. this ban seems a bit ridiculous and its a 1st offense to boot. they can tak their sig spampaigns n shove em. i dont need the bullshit for a minimal payment

[BadBear]

Based on what I've been seeing the staff/mods are really working on cracking down more aggressively on sig campaign spammers and account farmers. Perhaps that's why your ban was a bit more extreme.

Here's a recent post by Badbear in another thread:

Typical sig spammer ban duration escalation is now 14 days, 60 days, permanent. If it's someone I truly feel just needs a warning it will be 7, 30, permanent. This needs to stop so I'm going to be much more aggressive. If 8t doesn't work there's only 2 options left, and neither are good.

I do not unban accounts because they were sold. Many accounts being sold are on their second or third offense.

OP and all his alts are banned.

So it seems like they've bumped up the minimum sentence to 14 days from whatever it was prior.

It's mainly the second, used to be 30 typically.

@OP, it wasn't because you made a comment about not being banned, it was because you were mentioned in other threads I keep up on. I would've banned you earlier if I saw you. 

[hilariousandco]

@hilariousandco is it possible for you to go through the last 100ish posts on the yahoo62278 account and make a case to badbear to lift the ban? im not refuting that a few post were spammy but im not also agreeing that 60 posts were spam. this ban seems a bit ridiculous and its a 1st offense to boot. they can tak their sig spampaigns n shove em. i dont need the bullshit for a minimal payment

I've had a quick look through and in my opinion about half of them on the first page look ok but after that the quality clearly drops drastically when you start making them within minutes. I trust BadBear's judgement on these things and have no say in the matter of bans or reducing them anyway. Whilst 14 days may seem harsh I think bans are the best way to deal with spammers as the fear of losing their account and money is likely the only punishment/encouragement people will get to change their ways. Best I can do is offer you the advice to just wait out the ban and when you return make sure you keep the quality of your posts up. I wish bans weren't necessary but it's either that or banning signature campaigns which will inevitably come if people don't change their ways en masse.

[Quickseller]

@hilariousandco is it possible for you to go through the last 100ish posts on the yahoo62278 account and make a case to badbear to lift the ban? im not refuting that a few post were spammy but im not also agreeing that 60 posts were spam. this ban seems a bit ridiculous and its a 1st offense to boot. they can tak their sig spampaigns n shove em. i dont need the bullshit for a minimal payment

I've had a quick look through and in my opinion about half of them on the first page look ok but after that the quality clearly drops drastically when you start making them within minutes. I trust BadBear's judgement on these things and have no say in the matter of bans or reducing them anyway. Whilst 14 days may seem harsh I think bans are the best way to deal with spammers as the fear of losing their account and money is likely the only punishment/encouragement people will get to change their ways. Best I can do is offer you the advice to just wait out the ban and when you return make sure you keep the quality of your posts up. I wish bans weren't necessary but it's either that or banning signature campaigns which will inevitably come if people don't change their ways en masse.

The first page of his posts are good because he is making an argument to have gotten paid for more of his posts, which he ironically put a lot more effort into making then when he was making posts hoping to get paid for 100 posts.

It would be possible to make an argument to advocate for someone to get unbanned or to have their 'sentence' reduced, however I would personally say that would not be appropriate to do so in this case. Even if such an argument was made, there is nothing to say that he would follow such advice, although I do think BadBear is generally fair.

[Equinoxx]

heres an idea for ya though, instead of punishing users for trying to make a goddamn dollar, why not punish the freaking campaign managers that basically have users spam the fuck outta the place? 100 posts a week, hmm im pretty sure ppl are gonna try n get those posts any way possible.(bit-x, dadice) if you want reasonable posting then dont have unreasonable requests in the campaigns. sure 100 posts in a week is possible, but from how many users? not very many.

You can't blame signature campaigns. Just because a campaign says you can earn 1.2 / month, don't try and take advantage of it by making useless posts. ( I have not reviewed your posts yet, but by only getting paid for 40 of your posts out of 100 says something. ) Just because a job pays x / month for doing a good job doesn't mean you must work badly to achieve x because you will most likely receive y.

[Wardrick]

"Typical sig spammer ban duration escalation is now 14 days, 60 days, permanent. If it's someone I truly feel just needs a warning it will be 7, 30, permanent. This needs to stop so I'm going to be much more aggressive. If 8t doesn't work there's only 2 options left, and neither are good".

There could be a fee added that could be paid in exchange for the length of the ban. That would give some incentive for people to not spam if they were to be unbanned. They can always create threads in meta to appeal their ban but I haven't seen any threads where the community hasnt agreed with the ban.

[Astargath]

But campaigns dont require 100 posts per week as far as i know thats the MAX posts per week, they require only 20 min posts per week wich is a reasonable amount so you dont really have to make 100 posts

[maku]

But campaigns dont require 100 posts per week as far as i know thats the MAX posts per week, they require only 20 min posts per week wich is a reasonable amount so you dont really have to make 100 posts

No you are only stating DaDice signature campaign rules. There are different set of rules for each of forum signature campaigns for example bit-x has no limit of posts at all, other signature campaigns will pay you for 50 posts per month etc. I can see that most of the banned users comes from bit-x, since they paying well and has no limits...

[Muhammed Zakir]

"Typical sig spammer ban duration escalation is now 14 days, 60 days, permanent. If it's someone I truly feel just needs a warning it will be 7, 30, permanent. This needs to stop so I'm going to be much more aggressive. If 8t doesn't work there's only 2 options left, and neither are good".

There could be a fee added that could be paid in exchange for the length of the ban. That would give some incentive for people to not spam if they were to be unbanned. They can always create threads in meta to appeal their ban but I haven't seen any threads where the community hasnt agreed with the ban.

It isn't a good idea, IMHO. Rich spammers will still spam after they pay the fee and it would allow discrimination. Sometimes high spammers maybe unbanned before low spammers by paying the fee and it is unjust, atleast according to me. I disagree with the *fee thing*.

[Wardrick]

"Typical sig spammer ban duration escalation is now 14 days, 60 days, permanent. If it's someone I truly feel just needs a warning it will be 7, 30, permanent. This needs to stop so I'm going to be much more aggressive. If 8t doesn't work there's only 2 options left, and neither are good".

There could be a fee added that could be paid in exchange for the length of the ban. That would give some incentive for people to not spam if they were to be unbanned. They can always create threads in meta to appeal their ban but I haven't seen any threads where the community hasnt agreed with the ban.

It isn't a good idea, IMHO. Reach spammers will still spam after they pay the fee and it would allow discrimination. Sometimes high spammers maybe unbanned before low spammers by paying the fee and it is unjust, atleast according to me. I disagree with the *fee thing*.

That would be the point of having a fee. It is giving back to the forum in a positive way after negatively contributing to the forum. I don't know why someone would continue to spam after paying a fine because they could create a new account or just wait out their ban. I'd agree that there could be people who claim discrimination, but it would be easily ousted when threads are created and the evidence is presented. It would probably cause to much arguments over unjust bannings though so it would be more harmful than helpful.

[BitcoinFr34k]

"Typical sig spammer ban duration escalation is now 14 days, 60 days, permanent. If it's someone I truly feel just needs a warning it will be 7, 30, permanent. This needs to stop so I'm going to be much more aggressive. If 8t doesn't work there's only 2 options left, and neither are good".

There could be a fee added that could be paid in exchange for the length of the ban. That would give some incentive for people to not spam if they were to be unbanned. They can always create threads in meta to appeal their ban but I haven't seen any threads where the community hasnt agreed with the ban.

It isn't a good idea, IMHO. Rich spammers will still spam after they pay the fee and it would allow discrimination. Sometimes high spammers maybe unbanned before low spammers by paying the fee and it is unjust, atleast according to me. I disagree with the *fee thing*.

I would like this idea, although you do have a good point about finding the appropriate fee that users will need to pay to get unbanned. I think the number of infractions that a particular user has had should determine what the appropriate fee should be. 

As Wardrick mentioned above, I am sure that people will probably make claims that they are essentially being extorted into paying a fee and although people can potentially present evidence of such activity, I think it would be hard to prove, and would probably put a larger burden on the admins in presenting evidence that someone was spamming or otherwise violating the rules.

[waterpile]

I guess the only thing you can do for now is to serve your ban sentence mate.

[zidane]

i had a similar case ahh not so similar but almost similar
nothing wrong with my post like usual, IMO
but somehow i got banned 14 days.. didn't get any message so i don't know why i got banned ,, 
i was message badbear and waiting for his reply my message

[botany]

@OP, it wasn't because you made a comment about not being banned, it was because you were mentioned in other threads I keep up on.

Does this refer to threads on spammers in the staff board?