Quote from: Lauda on January 14, 2017, 12:32:59 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

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

Those are general reasons to have alts, not reasons to have alts in campaigns which is what I'm arguing against. Therefore, the first two are invalid.

What about the 3rd?

Quote from: Lauda on January 14, 2017, 12:32:59 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

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?

Again, I'm uncertain as to what you're targeting with those question as I can not punish people in this way. Elaborate?

Your negative rating is a financial punishment removing them from almost all signature campaigns, making the account worthless for sale or as collateral and making deals in general sigificant more difficult.

Quote from: Lauda on January 14, 2017, 12:32:59 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

All I see is you evading my questions.

The answer can be intuitively deducted.

Obviously I cant, hence Im asking.

Quote from: Lauda on January 14, 2017, 12:32:59 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

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.

It doesn't even matter who it is, as long as they are active and properly moderate.

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

Lauda agreed to go after managers, but instead keeps punishing campaigners.

No, I have not. I have brainstormed the idea which didn't take off.

hm, alright, might have misunderstood. Why didnt it "take off"?

Quote from: Lauda on January 14, 2017, 12:32:59 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

Lauda agreed to make a thread explaining their 'rules' for these ratings and how to get rid of them, they did not.

It is on the TODO list.

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

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.

It was not lifted; I have served out my ban. I'm not sure what relevance that has with the 'way that I currently handle the situation'.

I know you dont see the resemblance. Even I godwin'd and you didnt get it.

Quote from: minifrij on January 14, 2017, 01:45:39 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

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

Who do you think would do the work?

Global mods and Admins.

I was asking for specifics. Which Global mods/Admins do you think would deal with this currently?

All active ones. I feel Im missing the point, maybe rephrase the question?

Quote from: minifrij on January 14, 2017, 01:45:39 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

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.

The problem seems to be that theymos doesn't agree. I (of course) have little idea what goes on behind the scenes, however I am fairly sure some staff members have been asking for a new global mod for a while just to be essentially ignored by theymos.

Thats still not a reason to use the trust system as a moderation tool. The end does not justify the means.

Quote from: minifrij on January 14, 2017, 01:45:39 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

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

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

Giving them negative ratings the way its currently done isnt either.

What would you propose to do differently? Wait for mods that are busy/don't care to handle the situation?

Yes, create enough threads in meta or PMs to make sure there is a need to solve this. If its not working, move on.

Quote from: minifrij on January 14, 2017, 01:45:39 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

They dont even bother to leave a reference anymore.

From what I can see the vast majority of recent trust ratings left by them have contained a reference, which ratings are you talking about?

Ill take the point back, not because I think I am wrong or you are right, but because I dont think this is an important point and Id like to avoid getting lost in details.

Quote from: minifrij on January 14, 2017, 01:45:39 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

Keep in mind that Lauda themselves is in this current position of power (DT & Staff) because an admin lifted their ban (for spam).

Considering that Lauda was banned twice for spam, I believe they would have been only temporarily banned. If this is the case the ban wasn't lifted, they just served it out.

It sounded differently when I and Lauda talked about it, but Im willing to accept that I just understood it wrongly. I also did not bother to contact BadBear about this, because it seems they are gone. This is one of my points though, Laudas trust ratings are not served out.

Quote from: minifrij on January 14, 2017, 01:45:39 PM

Quote from: shorena on January 14, 2017, 12:15:01 PM

I dont think something like this is possible with the way Lauda currently handles the situation.

If anything it is easier for people to dispute these negative ratings than a forum ban.
A forum ban prevents those affected from posting anywhere other than Meta. A negative trust rating doesn't prevent anything other than joining a signature campaign or trading with others easily.

Its not served out though, you have to rely on Lauda to remove the rating. If Lauda thinks you didnt improve enough, thats it.