97 replies to this topic

[Waser Lave]

What I'd be most concerned about is the possibility of members getting userbar blindness, i.e. they're so used to seeing all these different types and styles of userbar that they stop taking notice of what they actually represent. That's not likely to happen with a member title because there aren't a massive amount of people have them and the message in there is very clear.

[Frizzle]

But tbh, I've also had enough (like everyone else). So can we please drop it from now on @ Frizzle ?

Sure, if you make up for your past transgressions and prove that you're not motivated by material/financial gain.

[Magical]

Sure, if you make up for your past transgressions and prove that you're not motivated by material/financial gain.

 

Sounds great!

[Sweeney]

Also, we don't permit homeless people into convenience stores, because they've been known to steal candy bars.
It's bias. Period.

It's not bias... we're not profiling you based on unrelated characteristics.

You trade in stolen goods, therefore we do not permit you to trade here because of the increased risk to our users.

[Magical]

This is all your fault!

(And Magical's, because fyi, he is trade banned, if anyone was wondering)

 

Lmao, actually, who started this thread?

Gah! It's you @Stuck!

[Waser Lave]

Granted, the parallelism was a bit weak in the analogy. Here's another one that is more parallel with the situation:

 

Suppose the moderators in this lovely forum one day decide they hate anyone that utters the word "kazoo" in their posts. These moderators decide people who say "kazoo" should be demoted to the member rank. Therefore, they create a rule today that demotes people that say "kazoo". Would it be right for them to demote every single person in the history of Neocodex that ever said "kazoo"?

 

The answer is no. In the past, the rule which demoted people saying "kazoo" did not exist, so the people of Neocodex did not know to avoid saying "kazoo". It would be unfair to punish people for a rule that didn't exist. If you replace demotion for saying "kazoo" with demotion for getting trade banned, it's the exact same concept

 

We quite like kazoos though.

[Boggart]

Put it in the username

[Elindoril]

Granted, the parallelism was a bit weak in the analogy. Here's another one that is more parallel with the situation:

For starters. We don't have to demote anyone to give them the userbar if that's what you're complaining about. Maybe that's not your issue, but either way it's a complete non-issue. I'm sure the staff won't create a completely new usergroup for trade banned users and will just keep the mask they have already.

Secondly. Not in the rules? Let's take a look at the trading post. In big letters it states,
 

Prepare to have trading post privileges removed if you are found dealing in goods that do not belong to you. This applies also to users who deal in such things elsewhere, due to the need to protect our users' account security.

As far as I've been here (which is 5 years) the community and staff have not condoned any sort of illegal dealings like this. The rule may not have been so outright descriptive, but it's always been there. Someone cannot come here and be a good boy or girl, get found out for dealing with stolen goods on another web site, and get mad when we demote them for their privileged rank. The whole point of these ranks is nice advancement for upstanding members who show good community spirit and hold up the site's rules. Those rules include not trading stolen goods here or anywhere.

I'm not going to say we should just demote everyone who may have advanced and have been trade banned. Give them a chance to appeal before the immediate demotion.

[Boggart]

"Bogbannedfromtradingdonottradewiththisusergart"

Bog Not Trade LOL

[Kat]

The consequence of demotion didn't exist before. If it did, then maybe those that have adv+ and are trade banned may have been more careful with trades, or not traded at all to comply with the extra consequence. 

 

I'm saying, we as a community should have just laws and consequences in place. Retroactive punishment isn't just, no matter how much you think the offenders deserve it. This isn't just my opinion, it's also the opinion of many countries around the world.

 

Your opinion is still wrong.

 

 

Why does this even matter??? Do we even have any advanced members who are banned from trading??

[Keil]

I'm saying, we as a community should have just laws and consequences in place. Retroactive punishment isn't just, no matter how much you think the offenders deserve it. This isn't just my opinion, it's also the opinion of many countries around the world.

 

Do not speak on behalf of anyone but yourself if you aren't being paid to do so, especially if done unrepresentedly. It's just distasteful and name-slandering.

 

As for your opinion being shared with other countries, I see the many countries believing that opinion out of convenience instead of justice (which I assume is your motivator for speaking your opinion). The only reason why so many would countries have anti-retrospective punishment sentiments is because it's expensive and resource-consuming to even deal with. 

 

Unlike countries with huge conflicted populations, multi-faceted justice systems, and struggling economies, we are a cheating site discussing trade bans.

[Elindoril]

We do have adv+ members that are trade banned.

How many are active and would complain about any of this?

[Waser Lave]

How many are active and would complain about any of this?

 

Literally 0, I just checked.

[Elindoril]

Literally 0, I just checked.

I can only even think of one user off the top of my head as is. That would be Tristen.

[Waser Lave]

I can only even think of one user off the top of my head as is. That would be Tristen.

 

And he hasn't been online in over a month so I think it's fair to say he's not active.

 

We have 3 Advanced+ and 1 Advanced Member with trading bans, all the rest are regular members/banned.

[Romy]

This is all your fault!

(And Magical's, because fyi, he is trade banned, if anyone was wondering)

I'M SORRY.

(I actually purposely sowed the seeds of discord....)

[Ali]

If you're going to rehash the same things over and over, can you make it juicier please guys? This was as dull as it always is and I was relying on someone providing me with some entertainment.

 

Edited by Waser Lave, 01 September 2014 - 01:06 PM.
Be careful what you wish for...

[Ali]

Racist jibe at my heritage @Waser Lave. Meany

*Hops on one foot while rubbing tummy in circles and patting head*

BRING BACK NEGATIVE REP!

Good effort I suppose. Better than the rest.

Neg rep neg rep neg rep!!

[Waser Lave]

Racist jibe at my heritage @Waser Lave. Meany

 

Topical racism though.

[NapisaurusRex]

This juicy enough for you?

-Image Removed-

[Magical]

For starters. We don't have to demote anyone to give them the userbar if that's what you're complaining about. Maybe that's not your issue, but either way it's a complete non-issue. I'm sure the staff won't create a completely new usergroup for trade banned users and will just keep the mask they have already.

Secondly. Not in the rules? Let's take a look at the trading post. In big letters it states,
 

As far as I've been here (which is 5 years) the community and staff have not condoned any sort of illegal dealings like this. The rule may not have been so outright descriptive, but it's always been there. Someone cannot come here and be a good boy or girl, get found out for dealing with stolen goods on another web site, and get mad when we demote them for their privileged rank. The whole point of these ranks is nice advancement for upstanding members who show good community spirit and hold up the site's rules. Those rules include not trading stolen goods here or anywhere.

I'm not going to say we should just demote everyone who may have advanced and have been trade banned. Give them a chance to appeal before the immediate demotion.

 

I wasn't going to say anything further but...

 

It's unethical to enforce morals upon someone. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you have to prevent them from doing something *pokes those dang Republicans*

 

I don't let my friend smoke weed in my house, but that doesn't mean I'll chain him to a tree to stop him from doing it outside.