Topic: [POLL]Double standard moderation? (Read 764 times)

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.

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...

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

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

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

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

I agree.

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ban-appealupdate-total-table-ban-status-need-feedback-from-global-mods-5144410
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/effect-of-signature-bans-5187016

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

I have never had my staff position removed for blackmailing people, does that count?

Is there double standards? But both options are yes?

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

Votes vs guess how many read the poll?
Or
Votes yes vs votes no?

How to see what the opinion is. I meant meta opinion is hardly worth a damn but still it is interesting to compare not guess.

Okay, thanks for your hints and good information. It is nice to know he has sig ban also.
The point stands that these same people were requesting he was not banned I initially and then begging for reinstatement..

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

It is conceivable that admin have information they do not wish to divulge to the forum for their decisions.

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.

The double standards more worrying or if not double standards just more of a crazy standards is allowing proven scammers and trust abusers in default trust 1 and worry about people who copy their Twitter or Facebook posts to the forum  on their projects thread.

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

Politics is fun but the forums strength is in a transparent,  fair and safe environment. Where each members finances and free speech are protected to the optimal level.  Start with those posing the most serious threat to those thing first.
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 ).

Well, exactly... isn't that the point?

To facilitate the same output given identical outputs? In order to inspect a system for reliable processes that hold minimal bias given that inputs are individuals.

---

ChiBitCTy already got a signature ban, IIRC. They are also an avid collector and most of their time is spent in the Collectibles section, like most people who participate in the sub-board.

Brevity would do you some good, the post is a little tough to follow and laced with rhetoric.

I hope the admin are smiling at the attempts of

Marlboroza the scammer supporter x 3
Lauda the proven scammer

The same scum that were crying for their pal

Chitbitcity to be

1. Not banned for self confessed financially motivated plagiarism
2. Then when theymos banned him they were begging for his reinstatement

Lol

Hacker0101000101 was banned temp and given 2 years sig ban

Is chitbitcity or whatever that shitposters name is on a 2 year sig ban?


This poll is bogus

Where are the options to disagree with scammer malborozas fake opinion?


Where is the option to vote and say you agree with how the admin have decided already?

Fake poll from scammers and scammer supporters

I vote that if neither of the members in the poll scammed anyone then give them both a 5yr sig ban and that's enough. Only if chitbitcity gets the same. Financially motivated plagiarism is worth a sig ban. No real enthusiast would stop contributing just because they didnt have a sig.

Rather ban members that have been proven to directly financially dangerous aka proven scammers and kick out their double standards whining ass munching slobbering idiot pals who protect scammers and make excuses for them

This poll demonstrates they dont want to even give opportunity to disagree with them.
The poll is bogus.

Ban proven scammers first especially those with multiple instances of directly financially dangerous behaviors.

These Croatian dogs yapping away whining about lesser evils than their own are embarrassing.
Milking the board with their sigs, escrowing schemes using other people's btc they are meant  to be holding to greedily get more fork coins , any money making scheme the greedy slags can get their dirty paws on. Trying to extort people.

Kick them out first.

Greedy self serving scum.

I'm not voting on this bogus fixed and manipulated scam poll.

Reset and put the option leave it as it is. Or the option dont give a shit until we ban scammers first.
Even better ban proven scammers.


Its very simple

The threads says double standards?
The options only allow you to agree with what malboroza wants you to vote for
 

If you vote at all you are saying there is double standards

Typical retarded effort from moronbozo to manipulate things lol

Creates poll where you can only agree with what he wants? Lol

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

Since you named the topic Double standard moderation and not something like negligent moderation, I'm going to assume you mean that the staff are somehow rouge and are keeping people they like, banning the ones they don't care about, stuff like that.

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.

No, poll is as it should be. It would be pointless to place all other subjects into this matter, I believe one is more than enough, everyone can read topic, right? I specifically said:
You could imagine it is not hacker but some other account mentioned in that topic.[1]
Moderators, that is what you are looking for. Not even hacker agree with regulusHR ban
...but he didn't mention why regulus should get second chance, like he did.
Conspiracy theory  

---

[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ban-evasion-by-dt1-member-please-permaban-account-case-2-5206971 Account Otto_diesel is evading ban, manipulating DT and abusing merit (you can find that in topic) and he is accused of terrorism btw https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53689508. He is not banned.

Sure marlboroza can update and make better poll, but looks like there is no other way to have DT members and moderators to reply in RegulusHR topic.
One way or another, it is not fair.
Not to mention mysterious editing and post vanishing

This is actually a great explanation. The problem is that we have heard a lot of great explanations so far, we have done everything by the rules of the forum and what have we accomplished?
Nobody even answered any of our questions regarding the ban. For more than a year!

I can understand marlboroza's frustrations, he's a long time forum contributor and the inequality is the toughest bitch to deal with. More so since we are talking about things like these on a forum built to separate us from ordinary politics bullshit.
We are just sick of it all, without any normal arrows to shoot anymore. So I guess we are starting to throw some shit to see if it sticks.

Wrong. We are comparing the right things. Actually we are comparing a lesser evil that got more punished than a bigger evil. What are you rambling about?

That is correct. This:

...at least some users would like to see this for regulushr's case. Also, don't forget that there are at least 10 examples of users getting second chance.

I have to agree with this. Trying to tie up someone's ban situation with a completely unrelated person's unban situation is not the way to handle this. You're making an apples and oranges comparison trying to put hacker's ICO bumping and regulus' plagiarism offense on two opposite sides of the coin.

(and please don't bring up hacker's plagiarism offense here as punishment has already been meted out for that.)

Where is the option to ban Lauda?

Not the best way to support double standards, lack of transparency and accountability either. The lack of these is very evident, but this is exactly how liberals turn everything into a pile of shit. The forum is mostly a circle-jerk from people who are afraid to do something about it.

Dumbasses and monkeys everywhere.

You are full of shit and showing lapse in your judgement with clear double standards.

Even I support RegulusHR's unban, but unban him or ban me..awesome justice !

You should better compare your own abuse and supporting of user's and cases biasedly with me. I am way less evil' and harmful to the community than your biased judgements. And have lesser greed of power than you, on the other hand complain about double standards from you are laughable.

It would be better if we compare yours and mine deeds other than me and RegulusHR's.

faucet hunter !

The basis for leniency in plagiarism cases should be the contributions of the user to the forum. This should have nothing to do with whether some other user got unbanned or not. If I were in this position I certainly wouldn't want my case to be compared to some ICO spammer who may have gotten undeservedly unbanned. I wouldn't want an undeserved unban. And I wouldn't want someone else to get banned just because I (hypothetically) got banned unfairly. Two wrongs and all that.

Not the best way to advance your argument guys I'm afraid.