Topic: Lauda, please see to this! Just my opinion. :) - page 2. (Read 1942 times)

To clarify the situation to outsiders, I have caught the OP spamming via a method known as 'shot bursting' (should be self explanatory). They have also admitted this via PM:

To cover some things:
1) This is not related to banning, thus this comparison i a 'false equivalency'.
2) The banning policy has become much softer since BadBear is inactive.
3) Where did you get this '30 days review' thing for negative ratings? There is no such. You may be talking about the SMAS blacklist, which has a review period (on request) 30 days after you've been added. However, that has no relevance here.

---

Considering the circumstances, and your mature acceptance of this situation I think that this warrants a tone down to neutral (which puts you into my watch list). However, if this has landed you on a blacklist by SMAS, then you don't get a second chance early for that.

Yeah I did, and that's the only reason I created this thread.
I know that sorry is not a word that could get me anything here, but giving it a try is what I did.



Thanks a lot yahoo for replying here, I just wanted to hear from you guys.
I did the wrong thing by posting in such a way which looked spammy, but most of my posts weren't spam and were on-topic.
It was just that the time during which I did all this was too short for me to show myself innocent here, which is why I am sorry as I know I did it just for the sake of payment and nothing. All week long, I was not able to make any posts due to which I took this step. Even making 20 - 40 posts a day is not an issue as I know many users do that, but the way they do it and they post helpful comments due to which they don't get such a feedback I got. And yeah, my mentality isn't what you think, yahoo. I don't think that I need to make xx posts to make xx $ on the forum with xx accounts, I don't have alts and have just one account here and I am happy to have it alone. I needed the coins, so I committed the fault.
Neither am I pissed off nor butthurt, and I am grateful to SMAS for not banning me from doing anything or joining any campaigns, but as the negative marking is from a DT member, do you really think anyone, even except you guys, would give me a chance to be in a signature campaign?
I know that it should not be my main purpose to make money here, but being in a signature campaign is what many members are here for.
The only difference is, few take it as a side business and others depend on it to live. I am the one who takes it as a side income, but all I thought was, as ban rules are 7 days for first chance, they should be fair in case of negative marking too and give another chance at a lower pace of time.

As I said previously, decision still rests in your court, and I know it's not going to change.

And he just apologized for it too which is invisible to most of you guys .

Oh yeah, here's a future banned sig spammer.  Didn't understand this at all.

If a hero member is still posting with such poor quality as to get negged, does anyone really believe they're going to ramp up anything but post length?  Quality is hard to improve for these people.  Agree that campaign earnings should be subordinate to the real desire to post simply to engage in discussion.

You marked as Signature Campaign (Spam/Abuse).
[SOURCE]

---

My reference's you must delete all post intended. and try to acknowledge and do a appeal.

The SMAS team isnt banning you from this forum. We are not stopping you from joining in any campaign that will accept you. We are not stopping you from conducting any trades on this forum. Youre still free to go about your daily business. Traders can read the feedback and see its from spammy posting activity, not scammy trading.

With all this being said, you self admittingly agree to the feedback. So you should accept the punishment(30 days) and move on. As stated we are not banning you from the forum(7 days, 14, 30, perma), youre just not gonna be allowed in many campaigns until you change your posting style and start contributing to this forum.

Your main concern should no be money and thats what everyone seems to have a problem with. Anyone who is a positive member of the forum is on board(at least from what i see) with the SMAS movement. The only people who seem to be pissed off or butthurt are those who are depending on filling their wallets from sig campaign money. Those ppl who have been running multiple accounts over the years are whom im seeing write all the negative threads this week from alt accounts.

You should only be posting casually to earn a few bucks people. Ive said it before and im saying it again here, this is not your weekly paycheck. Get a damn job, or offer a service to earn bitcoin. Your mentality shouldnt be, i need to make 400 posts this week so i can make 200$ on the forum from my 20 accounts.

You just admitted you were guilty...

Hi Lauda,
I saw that you gave me a negative trust and I am not here to fight for the same, but say sorry to you for my behavior.
I know I deserved it just because I posted for the sake of payment only, and I know it was spammy.
But according to your rules, we need to wait for 30 days before asking again for a review of our account.
I saw about the ban theory, and also one thing that people who are banned for the 1st time, they get it for 7 days and then unbanned and get a chance to get back into a signature campaign or conduct their trades or anything.
2nd chance is 14 days and 3rd one is 30 days, the final warning after which that user gets perma-banned 4th time.

All I want to ask you is, can't this be fair in case of negative trust too that the review that takes place after 30 days should be done in 7 days only and give an opportunity to someone to prove themselves innocent? I know I had a job (signature campaign) and I didn't do it right, so even I believe that this spammy behavior should not be condoned or excused, but I am just asking about a fair decision I expect from you guys, especially Mods like you.

Still, it's your decision in the end, I just wanted to ask you what I had in my mind based on the fairness purpose.