Re: MISTAKE: I got a negative trust for doing NOTHING!
The novel begins,
Forcing campaign managers to not help promote spam would be the best place to start. Nip the problem in the bud and a lot of spam will go away. If a campaign manager refuses to abide by the forum rules then giving them negative trust would be well deserved, a good start, and would serve as a reminder to other managers to follow the rules set forth by the forum regardless of how little they agree to get paid for the job.
I'm sure you are aware of users wanting the signature campaigns gone because of the spam reason but something like the above, in my opinion, would help legitimize signature campaigns, make users happier, and create less work for the mods and staff later on.
As staff they should allow you to be able to do these basic things at least.
Yes, I mentioned part of this in my first post. His entire post history is blatantly spam from the moment he created that account.
Again, I dont agree with this method either and talked to Lauda directly about that as well. I prefer going after the managers and its what I and others will do in the future.
After reading through more of his posts I actually agree now with the negative trust he received due to him doing this in the past, getting banned, and then bragging about it on this new spam account.
I didn't miss it no, the first thing I posted in this thread was about his post history just being spam. That was more in reference to nothing being done to him so he just keeps on doing it. Once you notice that all of his post history is just spam preparing for signature campaigns and spam continuing once he was accepted it is easy to determine that he has more than one account used for this purpose and is a repeat offender.
I'm just a lazy person really so I didn't bother actually looking for them. That and I haven't had any sleep and it is now 1:30 pm for me lol.
This is something they should consider changing.
Yes and he has received this warning at least once on another account that I saw in my search of his posts.
You are a blatant account farmer with the sole purpose of spamming this forum for signature campaigns. Though your posts don't immediately look like spam normal people don't just post once in every topic and leave it at that. That isn't 'chatting' that is clearly posting as many times as you can for a campaign which is spam.
What is happening in this thread is how a discussion normally takes place. If you compare it to your post history it should be stick out pretty well. This isn't how people chat.
You understand full well what you are doing.
False assumption. I've been contacting several managers and campaigns regarding this issues. Some of us are also working on another method of combating spam.
Forcing campaign managers to not help promote spam would be the best place to start. Nip the problem in the bud and a lot of spam will go away. If a campaign manager refuses to abide by the forum rules then giving them negative trust would be well deserved, a good start, and would serve as a reminder to other managers to follow the rules set forth by the forum regardless of how little they agree to get paid for the job.
I'm sure you are aware of users wanting the signature campaigns gone because of the spam reason but something like the above, in my opinion, would help legitimize signature campaigns, make users happier, and create less work for the mods and staff later on.
I can't delete it. Even if I could, it would have little effect. It is pretty impossible to clean up after every spammer.
As staff they should allow you to be able to do these basic things at least.
No. This isn't an action from a staff member, but rather a member of the default trust system. Those are not necessarily connected.
P.S. Look at the findings from rizzarolla.
P.S. Look at the findings from rizzarolla.
Yes, I mentioned part of this in my first post. His entire post history is blatantly spam from the moment he created that account.
Again, I dont agree with this method either and talked to Lauda directly about that as well. I prefer going after the managers and its what I and others will do in the future.
After reading through more of his posts I actually agree now with the negative trust he received due to him doing this in the past, getting banned, and then bragging about it on this new spam account.
Did you miss the post by rizzlarolla? I think the OP tried to make it look like this, but does know very well whats wrong.
I didn't miss it no, the first thing I posted in this thread was about his post history just being spam. That was more in reference to nothing being done to him so he just keeps on doing it. Once you notice that all of his post history is just spam preparing for signature campaigns and spam continuing once he was accepted it is easy to determine that he has more than one account used for this purpose and is a repeat offender.
I'm just a lazy person really so I didn't bother actually looking for them. That and I haven't had any sleep and it is now 1:30 pm for me lol.
Lauda cant, as I said earlier they are lacking the required powers. Lauda is also a person high enough on the default trust network to matter. Thus this alternative approach. Id prefer this was not needed, but this requires action by one of the admins.
This is something they should consider changing.
The normal warning for spam is a 7 day ban.
Yes and he has received this warning at least once on another account that I saw in my search of his posts.
I have not broken the rule on this forum by having multiple accounts. MPREP who is ALSO A STAFF has made this absolutely clear in Meta.
I did not buy the account since any mod can verify the password has never changed.
So why is Lauda picking this up?
I did not buy the account since any mod can verify the password has never changed.
So why is Lauda picking this up?
You are a blatant account farmer with the sole purpose of spamming this forum for signature campaigns. Though your posts don't immediately look like spam normal people don't just post once in every topic and leave it at that. That isn't 'chatting' that is clearly posting as many times as you can for a campaign which is spam.
What is happening in this thread is how a discussion normally takes place. If you compare it to your post history it should be stick out pretty well. This isn't how people chat.
You understand full well what you are doing.
You know there is a very thin line between off-topic and on-topic sometimes. I had an account banned for seven days for making unsubstantial posts. But then I find it difficult to define what is substantial and what is not, I do not spam, so I tend to tread carefully now. Don't want to get banned again 