Topic: Policy on Mods accepting bribes - page 2. (Read 3110 times)

I'm upset that nobody offer me any bribe.

Forgot to answer this.

Bribes obviously.

This is a totally pointless thread with a totally pointless OP because it is already totally fair.  It is fair because the buyer can pay whatever he want to whomever he wants.  It is his money.  If the buyer of signature space wanted to pay girls more than boys they could.  If you do not like how someone runs a signature campaign then you are free to not participate.

No one is forcing you to sell signature space to them.  You do not have to sell your signature space at all.

Quit you insesant whining.

I think no. Stunna is probably accepting legendaries too, though I dont see a mention of that in the current OP. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, PD is not shut down for everyone. Rather, they are now accepting Jr. Members too, but all these are in their affiliate campaign.

Hey ACCTseller, ignore BitcoinExpress. He's using a common technique of deriding forum conversations, and that's by trying to turn the conversation away from the issue, and onto the people who makes the issues. It's very common -- see Julian Assange and supposed 'sexual assault', see Edward Snowden and 'russian spy', etc etc.

Don't fall for it. Ignore the moment you recognize someone is attempting this technique.


Um, no. What you say may hold weight, however Stunna has closed registrations for everyone but Staff members. If he is interested in getting more signature visibility, he would open it to everyone (and if demand > supply, decrease prices paid). The fact that he has closed enrollment for new members implies that he's not looking for more exposure for PrimeDice, but wants to have more staff on his payroll.

If you cannot see a problem with the latter, please concede your claim that this is a reasonable business decision (w/o considering benefits from paying staff), then we can argue that point specially.

And yes: every issue is made based on specific cases. Legal questions about the death penalty, abortion, constitutional are decided with a specific case involving two parties. Same concept in this case, and this belongs in meta.

What you're saying is that sig earnings should be relative to how much a sig can display. That makes sense. But why are you ok with different member ranks having different privileges of what is displayed in their sigs? And you're arguing for fairness?? Post quality are not determined by rank as you say, so why aren't you bitching about unfair sig displays too (higher ranks having more flashy sigs)?





This is according to YOU, but you cannot speak for everyone. I can argue the other position, where a staff's account name, avatar, and sig are more noticed by the general public compared to a regular account in the same rank. So even though sig displays don't have more privileges, the overall account and status gets them more attention, regardless of what they post. So in this sense, it is a valid business decision to pay staff more.





Lets not pretend that you're requesting this new policy out of a sense of altruism. If you really did care about the well being of the forum, then you wouldn't sell account. But the fact is, your whole existence on this forum is to hustle accounts. What you're doing is destroying credibility, selling trust, and indirectly promoting scamming. Worry about what your business revolves around and the implications of it before you worry about sig pay fairness.

I have no issue with users earning different amounts based on their ranking. A full member account is able to display a bigger signature then a member. A senior account has the same feature then a full member account. A hero account is able to display background colors while a senior account cannot. A legendary member's post is generally looked at more closely then a hero member's posts.

A staff member on the other hand generally will have their posts directed towards a smaller subset of people, more often then not addressing a specific concern of a user. Sometimes a staff member may post something unrelated to their duties as a moderator (and adding something to the conversation of the topic) but the rules for signatures are not changed because someone is a moderator, and a post is generally not looked at more closely because someone is a moderator/staff member (I don't have specific stats on how much staff members contribute to a conversation verses are directed towards a specific concern, but the best case scenario is that a moderator contributes 100% to the conversation and carries the same signature as others in his ranking). As a result there is no valid business reason to want to pay a staff member at a higher rate then other senior members earn (assuming the subject staff member is a senior member) other then to use that additional payment to get something out of them later.

In my private career, I have been forbidden from accepting gifts exceeding $25 per year from any one person in order to prevent any perceived conflict of interest. In the case in question, a senior member who also is a staff member would receive an extra $60 per month (based on $500/BTC) in compensation which comes out to $720 per year, or would be able to take advantage of an offer that is not available to anyone except for a staff member if they are not yet enrolled. The purpose of this limit is to prevent judgment from being clouded in the event of a request being received that should not be granted or a request that is borderline appropriate/inappropriate.

There is only one signature campaign that is doing this to my knowledge. The reason why I did not name the specific campaign is because I think the rules should be evenly be applied to everyone.

Someone's username and/or ranking should not have an effect on how you receive a message as long as the message contains a valid point. I would hope that you would not give money to a legendary member when they are clearly scamming when you would not give money to a newbie when the newbie is trying to pull the same scam. Why should my message be any different?

Most actions are public yes, through the  modlog but not users or mods involved. Need to know, etc.

Mods can accept bribes?  Sounds great!  How do I get to be a mod then?

hilariousandco was in PD sig campaign before he was a mod (I think?), so according to you, he should be booted from it now?

You were perfectly fine with a tiered payout according to rank. Now when there is a staff/legendary tier, it's a problem all of a sudden? If you're going to bitch about staff having higher pay in sig campaigns, then also bitch about unfair payouts according to rank.

This problem you bring up is isolated to one mod and one sig campaign. You don't sound any more professional making sweeping generalizations like this. Go take it up with Stunna and hilariousandco.


PS - why don't you come on your real account to bring this up? Ironic that you bring up such small "problem", yet your alt account is solely for buying/selling forum accounts, which is borderline shady. Only reason why this activity isn't against the rule is because it can't be enforced. So like you said, how are you going to enforce mods not giving inside info through email instead of PM? You can't, it's all based on the honor system.

Before, weren't we able to see mod actions (like "Jim banned by BadBear. Reason: talked shit about Usenet." - but mostly thread move & deletion spam)? Is there any reason that isn't public data? Worried about kids walking in on what the adults say in the teacher's lounge?

I don't like signature spammers either (or any other type of spammers for that matter). What I am saying is that it is not right to be able to use your position of power to be able receive a higher payment for no reason other then the fact that you hold this power. This is especially true when the person paying you is monitoring the same people that you (a person of power) has been entrusted to monitor and regulate, and you have additional tools to monitor these people.

Again thank you for your response.

I personally do not and would not expect privacy for any emails sent/received (equivalent to a PM) with my work email. I would not send any email that I would not want my boss (or her boss, or his boss, or his boss, or her boss, or his boss) to see as I would like to be able to maintain a positive relationship with all of them. I would also personally consider that a PM to a particular mod/staff member to be potentially be seen by any other mod/staff member. Then again I believe it has been said that the mods should be considered and looked at as volunteers.

I believe the moderator in question (I do not know with 100% certainty who it was, but I believe I know who it was) did have very good intentions. If he is who I think he is, then he is a very respected member of the community (and by me), and I think having him as a moderator will have an overall positive effect on the community. I also think that the forums definition of spam are very different then a campaign operator's definition of spam. (this may not matter as it is apparent that various back end processes are somewhat different then what I had imagined).

My concern is not so much as a business offering the higher rate as it is that moderators are accepting the higher rate (or being allowed to do so).

Again I thank you for addressing my concerns. Although the policy what not changed to what I was hoping for, you have at the very least looked into my concerns, and reacted in a way that you feel is appropriate in your best judgment (I would personally trust your judgment).

I hope at the very least my concerns have inspired some level of conversation about this topic (or at the very least inspired some level of thought about this topic).

I can see deleted posts so I don't see how that's a concern.


I know because he told me, I believe he had good intentions.

Violating someone's privacy by reading pm's because you think they violated someone else's privacy? That doesn't sound right at all, I try to respect everyone's privacy regardless of what I think. And I don't read pm's (though pm privacy can't be guaranteed).

And if sharing of information really becomes an issue then the simplest thing to do is remove the information, or be more selective about who has access to it, there are several easy ways to accomplish this. And that would be better than punishing all the mods for something one might do. Besides, weeding out banned sig spammers is easy, require x posts per week, since almost all are banned for a minimum of a week, usually 2.

If you have a problem with a business paying staff more, then I suggest you take it up with them.

I want to keep things as professional as possible. By directing accusations at certain people it makes it look like I am targeting them specifically which I am not (I have nothing against either of the people you mentioned personally). I hope to get the forum to adopt a policy against moderators accepting business opportunities that are not available to the general public if a member of the public was in the same circumstances.

You are correct to say that any campaign operator is free to pay whatever they want to whoever they want, but it should not necessarily be within forum guidelines/rules to accept these kinds of offers.

Why don't you just PM hilariousandco and Stunna. We all know you're directing it at these two, but rather you're making some generalizations when it doesn't even involve any other staff or any other sig campaigns.

It's Stunna's sig campaign, he can be as discriminatory as he wants with who he pays and what rate.

Thank you for replying and addressing this issue.

My concern about banning signature spammers is that these bans are likely based on other things (likely the number of previously delated posts they have). So if these other actions have happened to someone in a signature campaign (a lot of posts get delated that maybe shouldn't have been) then the account might get banned when a ban might not be warranted.

Based on your response, I assume that you know who had provided this signature campaign operator information about the users who were banned. You more then likely know who gave this information because it was likely sent via PM. But what if next time the information is sent in a way other then PM? It would be very difficult to track the dissemination of this information if it was sent by email (for example).

This is also essentially robbing the forum from potential revenue. By receiving a larger payment then what is available to the general public and then providing non-public information the forum is essentially robbed of the opportunity to sell this information if it deemed a good idea to do so. The same applies to anything else that a mod could potentially do in exchange for a higher payment.

I think that the forum should take up a policy to prohibit staff/moderators from accepting payment from a signature campaign that pays them at a higher rate then what they would receive if they were not a moderator/staff. This would stop the appearance of any conflict of interest.

That information about banned users shouldn't have been shared, and certainly shouldn't have been posted publicly, it's been handled.

Bans for sig spammers are generally posted in the staff forum and handled by me, any that aren't handled that way are already an anomaly and would be checked, so it's extremely unlikely that such a thing would go unnoticed.
    

...

Does the forum have a policy on mods accepting these kind of opportunities? If it does not then I think mods should be prohibited from accepting these kinds of offers. The reason for this is to prevent potential conflicts of interest, or potential perceived conflicts of interest.
[/quote]

This is a very important issue that you raised. There is no publicly available way to know when a user is banned, or how long they have been banned for. Stunna is getting this information somewhere, and either everyone needs to be able to get it, or no-one should be able to get it, especially as this is for commercial purposes.

Any scheme where staff are treated differently than other members creates a perceived conflicts of interest, and anyone who argues that they are able to control what variables play at all into their decision making process (consciously or subconsciously) is a liar (ie, there are conflicts of interest).