A new (lulz) high

[new_trader]

Seriously, why is it that the vast majority of people that have something interesting to say either get banned or leave..??

The only people who can answer that have either been banned or have left.

 

[VielGeld]

I also noticed that profitsniper has gone. Was he one of the hare's multinics?

Who would have thought profitsniper would be banned...and I wonder why?

No, he wasn't one of Hare's, but had some of his own and that was enough.

We're starting to crack down more on multinicks as their use isn't entirely legit, and that had to do with that.

 

[Vasco da Banana]

No, he wasn't one of Hare's, but had some of his own and that was enough.

We're starting to crack down more on multinicks as their use isn't entirely legit, and that had to do with that.

Does it really matter unless a vendor is operating some sort of multinick scam to drum up interest? Terminating people like Teh Hare only makes T2W more boring, with the inevitable result that teh site gets fewer visitors. Vicious circle.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

sniper was mr sb again surely.

if it indeed was, then maybe he shouldn't have been allowed 7 new threads and over 100 posts before getting rumbled. or was he not rumbled? but merely caught with other nics?

the chumps and their money are safe for now at least :clap:

 

[Shakone]

sniper was mr sb again surely.

if it indeed was, then maybe he shouldn't have been allowed 7 new threads and over 100 posts before getting rumbled. or was he not rumbled? but merely caught with other nics?

the chumps and their money are safe for now at least :clap:

He broke guidelines I think the very first day he posted, and was reported. He plastered his skype all over a chart for no reason, but the mods said this was not 'overt' selling. He had this part of his post eventually removed after being up for a couple of days, but didn't receive an infraction. I even told mods he had been here before and been banned, but that doesn't count for much. As you say, many days, posts and threads later he was eventually banned.

It really is silly, and why I gave up reporting posts.

Initially when Steve came in there were suggestions about being more transparent. We still don't really know why the hare was banned, or for how long (enough is enough doesn't appear in the guidelines).

We also hear about a new set of guidelines, and that we should be patient. How long is this going to take? Seems like a week and more has gone by with no progress.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

yes I'd seen it, but had forgotten about the Skype!

so we have the Skype.

we have a blog.

we have him posting -

The Forex Challenge
This will be a challenge to take a account of only £500 to £10,000

we have the trademark spelling errors.

we now are told there are other nics.

only one conclusion can be formed who sniper is.

 

[wackypete2]

I even told mods he had been here before and been banned, but that doesn't count for much..

I have been told this by an admin during a pm discussion although it concerned a different member. Unreal.

Peter

 

[Hakuna Matata]

I have been told this by an admin during a pm discussion although it concerned a different member. Unreal.

Peter

I have been here under... 5? 6? 7? different usernames?

It used to be that there was a pattern in my names (Characters from Liars Poker, John le Carre novels, and lastly french cheeses).OK, make it 8 or 9 different usernames.

The "staff" know exactly who I am. They even address me as "Dash" in PM's.

EDIT: I forgot I used fictional porn star names too (Brock Landers and Chest Rockwell iirc)

 

[Hakuna Matata]

Actually, I'd be interested to see how many I can list:

DashRiprock
HumanPirhana
George Smiley
Alex Leamas
Brie
Camembert
Brock Landers
Chest Rockwell
Hakuna Matata

Not in order, and some may be off. Equally there may be some I've forgotten. Who was the guy in Honourable Schoolboy? Teddy something? Was he one?

 

[VielGeld]

Does it really matter unless a vendor is operating some sort of multinick scam to drum up interest? Terminating people like Teh Hare only makes T2W more boring, with the inevitable result that teh site gets fewer visitors. Vicious circle.

Yes, it matters. This guy was basically having conversations with himself (his nicks). You can guess as to why.

Hare has/had no other known nicks at this time, btw.

sniper was mr sb again surely.

if it indeed was, then maybe he shouldn't have been allowed 7 new threads and over 100 posts before getting rumbled. or was he not rumbled? but merely caught with other nics?

the chumps and their money are safe for now at least :clap:

Just going by multinicks, there was no indication he was Mr. SB (at least on my end since I don't know who Mr. SB is!). There's little doubt as to what he was about, though.

Any other notorious names I should know? Could be good for future reference.

He broke guidelines I think the very first day he posted, and was reported. He plastered his skype all over a chart for no reason, but the mods said this was not 'overt' selling. He had this part of his post eventually removed after being up for a couple of days, but didn't receive an infraction. I even told mods he had been here before and been banned, but that doesn't count for much. As you say, many days, posts and threads later he was eventually banned.

It really is silly, and why I gave up reporting posts.

Yes, he should have been infracted for that. I think it's just a habit that will need to be practiced.

Initially when Steve came in there were suggestions about being more transparent. We still don't really know why the hare was banned, or for how long (enough is enough doesn't appear in the guidelines).

We also hear about a new set of guidelines, and that we should be patient. How long is this going to take? Seems like a week and more has gone by with no progress.

Actually, Barjon already gave the reason in his post in this thread, though it could be clarified a bit. Of his own initiative, Steve decided enough was enough and banned Hare. That's what we know on our end, but it's easy to speculate that Hare's accusations of dubious/illegal activity on T2W's part went a bit too far. That's my guess, anyway. I'll withhold my own opinion here.

Otherwise, things will come Soon™.

Well, I can't tell you when stuff will get done (it will get done when it'll get done) as things take time, but we're seeing about getting more proactive on our end, guidelines or not.

And I try to be as transparent as possible myself (for better or worse ), so there's that.

I have been told this by an admin during a pm discussion although it concerned a different member. Unreal.

Peter

Why shouldn't it count for much (unless previously banned member was mostly harmless)? Regardless, I looked into Sniper precisely because LM raised the issue. Mr. SB or not, we got him for something he shouldn't have been doing.

 

[Hakuna Matata]

Also, for the record, let me state that I have NEVER had active usernames in parallel. I've always created a new one once the present one has been banned (mostly, ironically, for being a multinic).

 

[VielGeld]

Also, for the record, let me state that I have NEVER had active usernames in parallel. I've always created a new one once the present one has been banned (mostly, ironically, for being a multinic).

I won't personally ban a member who has positive contributions to make to T2W (when in good behaviour... :whistling), so you won't see me banning you just yet.

If you can stick to this one account and behave, I think you're fine.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

I won't personally ban a member who has positive contributions to make to T2W.

the flaw in that approach is it can likely give scammers a free run. it's a perfectly fine approach for the exclusion of lulz/sport etc. due to the monetary nature of the site, if the scope of how you view this isn't widened out considerably, then member safety is compromised.

out of interest. in your guidelines, does tackling lulz come above member safety in the order of things?

 

[trendie]

The last time these kinds of things were discussed (years and years ago), one proposal was to list the members previous nics as part of their details, on teh left-hand side, under their avatars.
Obviously it would be a manual activity by mods.

That way some degree of transparency could be had, and previous convictions listed, allowing members, esp newbies, some visibility of the character of the member concerned.

 

[VielGeld]

out of interest. in your guidelines, does tackling lulz come above member safety in the order of things?

Member safety should be #1, no? Lulz are fine so long as they don't derail a thread, imo.

It's also about common sense. We know who contributes and who doesn't. Among vendors, the ones I know positively contribute can be counted on one hand. Any other needs to prove themselves first.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Member safety should be #1, no? Lulz are fine so long as they don't derail a thread, imo.

It's also about common sense. We know who contributes and who doesn't. Among vendors, the ones I know positively contribute can be counted on one hand. Any other needs to prove themselves first.

well in light of the latest mr sb lulz you've now to address the issue that a member who it seems was posting in a friendly manner for at least several days and not the several hours posted in the thread!! was later indeed proven to be a not so friendly multinic who rips off forum members. a multinic who laughs in the face of, and abuses the ripped off once he has their money.

there were no post reports it seems in the debacle. indeed it appears posts warning of identity were deleted in efforts to keep the thread on track. there now has to be a rethink of priorities surely? I have been warning for a long time now post reporting cannot be relied on. when is the moderating going to proactive rather than reactive, and when is someone going to listen properly to the message instead of ignoring it

 

[Lightning McQueen]

an admin says in the thread he wasn't aware, really!!?

see pic courtesy of mr google of his first posting. (30th may)

 

[barjon]

..................and when is someone going to listen properly to the message instead of ignoring it .............

And just when are you going to stop ignoring the fact that people have been damn well listening and doing their damned best to get it right. If that's falling short, and continues to fall short, of the perfection you reckon you can achieve, then damn well come back and help out. Until then, just let us get on with doing our feeble best.

I'm sick to death of clever buggers, armed with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, telling me what I should have done. Constructive suggestions are one thing - much welcomed and long may they continue - but the continual " ha, ha, you got it wrong again and it was so obvious" is pretty wearing and dispiriting.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

And just when are you going to stop ignoring the fact that people have been damn well listening and doing their damned best to get it right. If that's falling short, and continues to fall short, of the perfection you reckon you can achieve, then damn well come back and help out. Until then, just let us get on with doing our feeble best.

I'm sick to death of clever buggers, armed with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, telling me what I should have done. Constructive suggestions are one thing - much welcomed and long may they continue - but the continual " ha, ha, you got it wrong again and it was so obvious" is pretty wearing and dispiriting.

it's no good getting the hump mate, you know full well that you need to look for it. and you know I know. all I see is everyone looking at threads that don't need looking at and never looking for what they should be looking for. being proactive means looking at new threads with iffy titles that give away the intent, also looking at "new" members with iffy nics and looking regularly through the "new post" lists. it's not rocket science to check them through.

it's not hindsight stuff to say that it should be easy to check if someone is really ig or not. that actually being one of the easiest for obvious reasons. 2 checks from modcp is all. and you did that right? and saw nothing untoward?

you can't get away from the fact that you lacked a post report to act in a timely manner, this somewhat proves the point of current lack of proactivity.

 

[Mr. Charts]

I've suggested this many times before over 12 years, but maybe the answer is PAID mods on rota duty so someone is always reading the posts, though they would have to be very very sane to survive ! Also have anonymous mods, just simply labelled "moderator" and unidentified so they won't feel personally got at or criticized.
Problem solved.