Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Trade Banned Userbar


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#26 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,913 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:03 PM

Why wouldn't it be retroactive? It's not like the team has to swim through a swarm of trade banned users or anything.

If you replace the userbar, then you (probably) demote all trade banned users to that user group. There are still some adv+ members that are trade banned, and it wouldn't be fair to demote them.


Basically if this idea falls through, have it as a secondary userbar.



#27 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4,626 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:14 PM

Tbh, now that I think about it, userbars were always meant to represent rank and nothing more, which is why we did away with the SOTW champ userbar.
I think applying a userbar for this would be inconsistent to that :(

 

What about the MOTM userbar?



#28 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:16 PM

There are still some adv+ members that are trade banned, and it wouldn't be fair to demote them.


I wholeheartedly disagree.

#29 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,913 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:31 PM

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I disagree with your disagreement. It isn't fair to impose anything retroactively. There's a reason why many countries around the world outlaw retroactive laws.

#30 Elindoril

Elindoril
  • Weeaboo Trash

  • 9,010 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:37 PM

I disagree with your disagreement. It isn't fair to impose anything retroactively. There's a reason why many countries around the world outlaw retroactive laws.

If the user got advanced+ and then did something to get a trade ban then they don't deserve to keep the advancement.

We're a Neopets community. Not a full freaking country.

#31 Kate

Kate
  • 🐟🐳


  • 7,364 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:41 PM

What about the MOTM userbar?

That's your current rank (well one of them) :p You are currently MOTM. 



#32 KyloRen

KyloRen
  • Snoke says I'm special.



  • 5,117 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 05:44 PM

If the user got advanced+ and then did something to get a trade ban then they don't deserve to keep the advancement.

We're a Neopets community. Not a full freaking country.

I agree. Let me add this in: Being anything above a member here is a privilege, not a right. If one is no longer allowed to be promoted because they broke the rules, why should one be allowed to keep the privilege of being anything above a member if they break the rules?



#33 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,913 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 07:14 PM

They should be allowed to keep the privilege because the additional consequence of demotion didn't exists when the offense was made. If such a consequence was implemented during their time, the said persons may have been more careful in trading.

Let's put it in a hypothetical situation where the owner of a park wishes to charge people who walk through it $10. The charge didn't exist before. If he wants to enforce the rule, would it be right for him to charge every single person that ever walked through the park, even if the people walked through the park before such a charge existed?

Edited by nitro, 31 August 2014 - 07:14 PM.


#34 Keil

Keil
  • Above Average Mediocrity


  • 6,350 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 07:39 PM

I don't get your example because Advanced+ is free. The parallelism just isn't there.

 

I also don't think you understand the concept of a privilege with that specific example.



#35 DonValentino

DonValentino
  • Neocodex Handegg League Champion/Daddy

  • 2,462 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 07:47 PM

Lmao this guy nitro is killin' it

 

I disagree with your disagreement. It isn't fair to impose anything retroactively. There's a reason why many countries around the world outlaw retroactive laws.

 

Let's put it in a hypothetical situation where the owner of a park wishes to charge people who walk through it $10. The charge didn't exist before. If he wants to enforce the rule, would it be right for him to charge every single person that ever walked through the park, even if the people walked through the park before such a charge existed?

Pure brilliance. Flawless. 



#36 Turnip

Turnip
  • woomy woomy manmenmi!!

  • 2,485 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 08:50 PM

They should be allowed to keep the privilege because the additional consequence of demotion didn't exists when the offense was made. If such a consequence was implemented during their time, the said persons may have been more careful in trading.

Let's put it in a hypothetical situation where the owner of a park wishes to charge people who walk through it $10. The charge didn't exist before. If he wants to enforce the rule, would it be right for him to charge every single person that ever walked through the park, even if the people walked through the park before such a charge existed?

 

Yo maybe I'm like too sleepy to understand English but I have no idea what the hell yuo just said lmao



#37 Elindoril

Elindoril
  • Weeaboo Trash

  • 9,010 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 08:50 PM

Whoa boy.

tA7altB.gif

#38 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 09:16 PM

I disagree with your disagreement. It isn't fair to impose anything retroactively. There's a reason why many countries around the world outlaw retroactive laws.


It isn't fair to impose many things retroactively. But to say "anything" is shortsighted.

#39 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 August 2014 - 11:56 PM

I actually agree with nitro. It sets a bad precedent that we can change our rules so flagrantly and without proper logic. I can understand in extreme circumstances which threatens the sites survival, but to act out something because we suddenly change our mind opens up a whole spectrum for abuse.

I still think trading bans should be permanent, to tolerate criminal behaviour, thievery and deceit does not look good for our site as a whole. I just don't think we should be applying new rules to old incidents.

#40 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 September 2014 - 02:51 AM

I think there is no need at all for a graphical effort to be made in relation to trade-banned users.

The member title and the member bars perform the exact same function in this case. The loss of the ability to have a custom member title is an additional punishment that I see no need to remove either.

 

TBH, I agree with this.

 

Also, when does the 'punishment' end? :p


I still think trading bans should be permanent, to tolerate criminal behaviour, thievery and deceit does not look good for our site as a whole. I just don't think we should be applying new rules to old incidents.

 

A trading ban serves the purpose to alert the community to an 'untrustworthy seller/buyer' based on speculation and/or evidence. Criminal behaviour, felony etc. is breaking the law of the land. Not the rules. There are no explicit laws to out-law it.



#41 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 September 2014 - 03:21 AM

Why allow the community to house people who cannot be trusted?

There are various different international and national laws that prohibit the sale, handling and conspiracy to enhance in handling of stolen goods (material or otherwise).

#42 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:14 AM

TBH, I agree with this.
 
Also, when does the 'punishment' end? :p

 
A trading ban serves the purpose to alert the community to an 'untrustworthy seller/buyer' based on speculation and/or evidence. Criminal behaviour, felony etc. is breaking the law of the land. Not the rules. There are no explicit laws to out-law it.


Trading bans are not enacted based on speculation.

#43 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:17 AM

It's out of the scope. This is a forum/cheating website, not a jurisdiction.

 

Also, we have warnings, suspensions and bans (there is a section for this). I'd think you'd be more sympathetic having been in there (multiple times) yourself. Why should we also house someone who's willing to break the rules?

 

If we're willing to overlook your transgressions with a simple disciplinary action then I think you can come to terms with mine.

 

Also, I never explicitly broke the trading rules. I've never traded illigit goods here, only on other sites. It was my own choice to openly admit that I have previously done so on other sites, once again, never here.



#44 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:26 AM

There's a difference between being a bit silly or rude and breaking law, violating trust and indulging in behaviour that can tarnish the site's reputation.

You're right in that we aren't a jurisdiction but we still have to follow laws and procedures in multiple countries. If we don't, we have to face the consequences of legal and civil action. I've already seen it happen to two different websites I've been on, and I don't fancy a court case because we house criminals like yourself.

#45 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:35 AM

There's a difference between being a bit silly or rude and breaking law, violating trust and indulging in behaviour that can tarnish the site's reputation.

You're right in that we aren't a jurisdiction but we still have to follow laws and procedures in multiple countries. If we don't, we have to face the consequences of legal and civil action. I've already seen it happen to two different websites I've been on, and I don't fancy a court case because we house criminals like yourself.

 

Hypochondria.



#46 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 September 2014 - 05:05 AM

You mean Hypochondriasis which only applies to health issues. Of course you would state that, you have nothing to lose as you've already been outed as a thief.

#47 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 September 2014 - 05:09 AM

You mean Hypochondriasis which only applies to health issues. Of course you would state that, you have nothing to lose as you've already been outed as a thief.

 

Outed?



#48 KyloRen

KyloRen
  • Snoke says I'm special.



  • 5,117 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 September 2014 - 05:33 AM

Please, please, stop complaining about your trade ban. It's getting very, very, old.

#49 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 September 2014 - 05:33 AM

You being banned from trading.

#50 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 September 2014 - 06:38 AM

Please, please, stop complaining about your trade ban. It's getting very, very, old.

 

As I've said multiple times, yes, I more than gladly will, as long as @ Frizzle stops slandering. He's already been warned once.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    YandexBot (1)