Quote from: Lauda on January 13, 2017, 08:13:58 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 13, 2017, 08:03:10 PM

1# privacy, allows users to voice unpopular opinion without fear for the main account.
2# security, users have a separate account for less secure systems.

Those fall invalid as I'm solely talking about signature campaign participants that enroll a plethora of accounts in the same or multiple signature campaigns. I'm well aware of those reasonable use-cases.

You said there are none, I present you reasons and you call them invalid. Its fun discussing with you.

Quote from: Lauda on January 13, 2017, 08:13:58 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 13, 2017, 08:03:10 PM

In this case I would say Im qualified due to my work for BadBear.

I'm not familiar with it, but sure.

Of course not.

Quote from: Lauda on January 13, 2017, 08:13:58 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 13, 2017, 08:03:10 PM

Lets assume it is as you say an the majority of multi accounters are shit posters. Why punish everyone without a way out or a chance of redemption?

What kind of redemption are you talking about?

A first time offender is warned with a 7 day ban.

#1 What is your first time offender warning period?
#2 How do you keep track of possible repeated offenders?
#3 How can those that have received it appeal the punishment?

Quote from: Lauda on January 13, 2017, 08:13:58 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 13, 2017, 08:03:10 PM

Why are you unable to let this get handled by mods?

I'm just going to leave a link to this thread of farmed accounts and put a Roll Eyes

in here.

All I see is you evading my questions.

Quote from: minifrij on January 13, 2017, 09:22:36 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 13, 2017, 08:03:10 PM

Why punish everyone without a way out or a chance of redemption?

I consider Lauda to be a fairly reasonable person. If a person improves their post quality and consistently post that way I see no reason why they wouldn't remove the negative trust attached to the account (as it would no longer be valid).

I used to think like that, but there are none of the common safeguards and (my) questions about them get ignored or waved off. Moderations has these in place, neg bombs by Lauda dont.

Quote from: minifrij on January 13, 2017, 09:22:36 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 13, 2017, 08:03:10 PM

Why are you unable to let this get handled by mods? Why do you claim a duty that is not yet yours, as your rank among staff is not yet high enough?

Who do you think would do the work?

Global mods and Admins.

Quote from: minifrij on January 13, 2017, 09:22:36 PM

The only person Global or above showing any interest in cracking down on spam on the forum is hilariousandco, and a task as widespread as cracking down on spam cannot be done by just one person who already has other responsibilities.

I agree, we need more mods able to handle this. If theymos thinks Lauda is fit for the job, they should make Lauda a global mod with the powers needed to do it.

Quote from: minifrij on January 13, 2017, 09:22:36 PM

People are getting tired of the mindless spam all over the forum, as I would think you are.

I dont argue against the existance of the problem, I argue against the solution.

Quote from: minifrij on January 13, 2017, 09:22:36 PM

Negative trusting these users to prevent them from joining most campaigns is a good method of attempting to lessen the problem until the mods/admins show that they care at all.

I disagree.

Quote from: minifrij on January 13, 2017, 09:22:36 PM

It is getting past the point of it being acceptable. People are joining here specifically to join a signature campaign and spam shit for some coins. That isn't right.

Giving them negative ratings the way its currently done isnt either. Lauda agreed to go after managers, but instead keeps punishing campaigners. Lauda agreed to make a thread explaining their 'rules' for these ratings and how to get rid of them, they did not. They dont even bother to leave a reference anymore.

Quote from: Lauda on January 14, 2017, 08:56:29 AM

Quote from: jackg on January 14, 2017, 02:04:38 AM

-snip-
@Lauda, could you also put some sort of reference link in the trust report just so it can be confirmed that the account was sold (I think trust seems more valid if it has an appropriate link of evidence attached to it - such as the sec-log data for both the change of password and email at the same time).

I'm not going to do that. The password change is already no longer visible here, not that this is relevant to my methods of uncovering account sales.

Keep in mind that Lauda themselves is in this current position of power (DT & Staff) because an admin lifted their ban (for spam). I dont think something like this is possible with the way Lauda currently handles the situation.