Interested to see what exactly the criteria is for feedback removal.
I will be strongly against any negative trust being removed from you as long as you are holding onto scammed coins you accepted under false pretenses. :/
Topic: Double Standards (Read 350 times)
I will be strongly against any negative trust being removed from you as long as you are holding onto scammed coins you accepted under false pretenses. :/
Interested to see what exactly the criteria is for feedback removal.
OP, you've done absolutely nothing since I left that feedback to prove to me that you're anything other than a signature campaign-fueled shitposter, and my guess is that you've got other accounts in on the game. You've left a lot of feedback but haven't earned any, nor have you done much aside from posting padded, garbled nonsense in mega spam threads.
Your feedback stays. You'll just have to swallow those inconsistencies in life, like we all do. Ask the death row inmate who didn't get the pardon how he feels. My guess is that the governor isn't going to be motivated to answer every critic and will just remain silent. If that example doesn't fit exactly, I'm sure you can think of another really good one--and you can even post it here and get paid for it!
And finally, if you don't like my answer, take it up the chain.
Your feedback stays. You'll just have to swallow those inconsistencies in life, like we all do. Ask the death row inmate who didn't get the pardon how he feels. My guess is that the governor isn't going to be motivated to answer every critic and will just remain silent. If that example doesn't fit exactly, I'm sure you can think of another really good one--and you can even post it here and get paid for it!
And finally, if you don't like my answer, take it up the chain.
After reading this thread and seeing some points presented on it, I thought I should open a thread to discuss some inconsistencies and contradictions present on the negative feedbacks that are spread around.
1. Accounts sales, acceptable/not acceptable?
Now the statements about accounts sales say that it was acceptable by 2015/2016. As I understood, I can say it was valid by the middle of 2016, as I made sure to ask about it first before doing so. Well, if it was tolerated by 2016, why were people being negatived on that time?
I took in consideration the statements from the reputable members. It was said this practice could be frowned upon/discouraged, as people used it to scam others and abuse campaigns, giveaways, etc... But since I didn't have any of these intentions, I thought it was Ok, as others (including more reputable members) were dealing this way without problems, probably they didn't have malicious intentions as well.
However I was negatived, even making sure that all the process was legal and acceptable on that time, otherwise people would have told me on my thread things like: "It was acceptable by last year, but people are abusing accounts sales and farming accounts a lot, so we don't accept it anymore and people are considered untrustworthy and are negatived, possibly FOREVER!".
Instead of hearing that, I just heared I should control my posts quality, otherwise I could be banned for this reason, on both accounts.
2. Double standards
Recently, I have seen an interesting post in a thread where a forum's member asked why some members buying accounts on the early days, in a same thread were negatived, while others (with higher trust on the forum) weren't. The case was instantly solved, everyone that posted on the specific thread, except the account seller (OP) and one another bidder, had their negative feedbacks removed.
What is the difference between those who posted in this thread from people who posted in another threads on the same period of time?
3. As I can't proove you are guilty, proove me you are innocent
It's not hard to track criminals on the old Auction's threads. People that were looking for accounts and that posteriorly received different kinds of negative feedbacks, not for accounts sales reasons, but because they were abusing, cheating, stealing, lying, etc...
The time revealed the intentions of each one on those threads, but still nowadays, everyone is put on the same dirty basket. Those who weren't/aren't involved in any kind of fraud, as the records can show, didn't receive at least the "benefit of the doubt", being the only way to have the negative rating removed by earning reputation from other forum's members.
Well, if accounts sales encourages scam, spam, accounts farming, this condition to have the feedback removed encourages trust farming! People will be forced to make deals they aren't interested, just to proove they deserve their neutral trust back...
Someone with an empty trust score can be more or equally trustworthy than someone with dozens of positive feedbacks that were earned with the exclusive intention to earn that trust, and not the goods/money being traded itself.
Also, this condition doesn't help anything in the combat of accounts sales. It's well known that the favorite dealers accounts are those ones with positive feedbacks, and thinking this way their business is safe, as accounts with positive feedbacks aren't negatived, quite the opposite, they have their negative feedbacks removed. Account dealers just need to earn some reputation, then they will have the negative removed, plus they will sell the account more expensive than before!
If someone is going to be the law, this person should be at least coherent with the ratings applied.
We are already tired about the selectivity and the power abuse practiced by the authorities in our countries, I think we don't need more of that in a place that is supposed to represent the opposite of what our societies became.
It's a decentralized society, committing the same mistakes of a centralized one.
1. Accounts sales, acceptable/not acceptable?
Now the statements about accounts sales say that it was acceptable by 2015/2016. As I understood, I can say it was valid by the middle of 2016, as I made sure to ask about it first before doing so. Well, if it was tolerated by 2016, why were people being negatived on that time?
I took in consideration the statements from the reputable members. It was said this practice could be frowned upon/discouraged, as people used it to scam others and abuse campaigns, giveaways, etc... But since I didn't have any of these intentions, I thought it was Ok, as others (including more reputable members) were dealing this way without problems, probably they didn't have malicious intentions as well.
However I was negatived, even making sure that all the process was legal and acceptable on that time, otherwise people would have told me on my thread things like: "It was acceptable by last year, but people are abusing accounts sales and farming accounts a lot, so we don't accept it anymore and people are considered untrustworthy and are negatived, possibly FOREVER!".
Instead of hearing that, I just heared I should control my posts quality, otherwise I could be banned for this reason, on both accounts.
2. Double standards
Recently, I have seen an interesting post in a thread where a forum's member asked why some members buying accounts on the early days, in a same thread were negatived, while others (with higher trust on the forum) weren't. The case was instantly solved, everyone that posted on the specific thread, except the account seller (OP) and one another bidder, had their negative feedbacks removed.
What is the difference between those who posted in this thread from people who posted in another threads on the same period of time?
3. As I can't proove you are guilty, proove me you are innocent
It's not hard to track criminals on the old Auction's threads. People that were looking for accounts and that posteriorly received different kinds of negative feedbacks, not for accounts sales reasons, but because they were abusing, cheating, stealing, lying, etc...
The time revealed the intentions of each one on those threads, but still nowadays, everyone is put on the same dirty basket. Those who weren't/aren't involved in any kind of fraud, as the records can show, didn't receive at least the "benefit of the doubt", being the only way to have the negative rating removed by earning reputation from other forum's members.
Well, if accounts sales encourages scam, spam, accounts farming, this condition to have the feedback removed encourages trust farming! People will be forced to make deals they aren't interested, just to proove they deserve their neutral trust back...
Someone with an empty trust score can be more or equally trustworthy than someone with dozens of positive feedbacks that were earned with the exclusive intention to earn that trust, and not the goods/money being traded itself.
Also, this condition doesn't help anything in the combat of accounts sales. It's well known that the favorite dealers accounts are those ones with positive feedbacks, and thinking this way their business is safe, as accounts with positive feedbacks aren't negatived, quite the opposite, they have their negative feedbacks removed. Account dealers just need to earn some reputation, then they will have the negative removed, plus they will sell the account more expensive than before!
If someone is going to be the law, this person should be at least coherent with the ratings applied.
We are already tired about the selectivity and the power abuse practiced by the authorities in our countries, I think we don't need more of that in a place that is supposed to represent the opposite of what our societies became.
It's a decentralized society, committing the same mistakes of a centralized one.
Jump to: