Thread: Policy change on introductions

For those of you who police the introduction section firstly....

Good job!

Next we have to outline a little policy change.

What we use to do.

Tell the user that TI does not support trading. Then condition them to our view.

What we will now do.

Something is wrong with your answer to the trading question.

Be vague and non specific. Ask questions as to why they think they should be so selfish. (for most this would be a hard concept to grasp as real life is pretty much self centered) Remember acceptance of trading as a good ideal is not a grounds for a ban, we live in a society where trading is the norm, please remember that when talking to someone who may be new to the torrenting community.

Do not rep anyone in till you think they fully understand why trading is not inline with the p2p idea and will be detriment to the private tracker system.



This does NOT apply to all other questions. Feel free to detail exactly what is wrong with the other introduction questions.

The reason for this change is many new users feel that we are conditioning or forcing a certain idea. This is not what we want.

Thanks, and keep up the good work.

great idea dave ... but I think you have to make rule to temp ban or give infraction to the users who keep tell new users about what's wrong with their intro

Good idea Dave, I think we must tell the guys why trading is bad and see our point of view, maybe they'll understand, if not T-I is not the right place for them :)

filele i think you are misunderstanding.

The idea is to not tell them our point of view, we are not going to force people. The idea is for people to understand themselves.

Thanks a lot Dave. I already post something along the lines of "Re-read the rules on trading"
I've seen members give too much away on what they've done wrong with the trading question. I agree with what TheBrokenHeart said. I think a first time offender of posting too much help should be warned or infracted, the next time they do it they should be banned for a bit.

In all honestly, you could justify trading as being no worse than giving invites through the system you have here with a difference perspective.

I mean in both cases you're getting something in return. In trading it's the other invite, here it's an iGiver point which helps you get further give-away invites.

In both cases you have incentive to vet the recipient because no matter what the system, giving away invites implies you have to ensure the user doesn't do anything wrong as it will have repercussions on your account regardless.

I personally respect the decision you have made here not to allow trading, and abide by it with any invites I get here. Frankly, I would never have the need to trade invites because this site provides everything I could want through giveaways anyway!

But my point is, I think your system is more a specific perspective rather than an obviously apparent position and if you want to get members in, many of them being fair, decent and abiding by the rules, you could just explain to them your views straight out.

Not that it's not already apparent in the FAQ sticky in the introduction forum anyway, making my post incredibly redundant!

Originally Posted by Deviant

In all honestly, you could justify trading as being no worse than giving invites through the system you have here with a difference perspective.

I mean in both cases you're getting something in return. In trading it's the other invite, here it's an iGiver point which helps you get further give-away invites.

In both cases you have incentive to vet the recipient because no matter what the system, giving away invites implies you have to ensure the user doesn't do anything wrong as it will have repercussions on your account regardless.

I personally respect the decision you have made here not to allow trading, and abide by it with any invites I get here. Frankly, I would never have the need to trade invites because this site provides everything I could want through giveaways anyway!

But my point is, I think your system is more a specific perspective rather than an obviously apparent position and if you want to get members in, many of them being fair, decent and abiding by the rules, you could just explain to them your views straight out.

Not that it's not already apparent in the FAQ sticky in the introduction forum anyway, making my post incredibly redundant!

Agreed some members prefer applicants with iGiver. But iGiver is only used to track and keep log of all invites and bonuses given.

thanks dave for the change to this part of the intro section. because there have been instances where people will change their answer or say they misunderstood the question simply because we have told them that we are a no trading community. So this is a great step. Now I hope that people understand because as we all know the intro section is the only entry way to our site Thanks again Dave

Originally Posted by TheBrokenHeart

great idea dave ... but I think you have to make rule to temp ban or give infraction to the users who keep tell new users about what's wrong with their intro

hi
already we have couple of rules regarding repping responsibility.
http://www.torrent-invites.com/newre...reply&p=434441
Putting more rules will scare intro checker. Admins are busy for making this site secure or scam free, I don't see any reasonn to put more pressure on them because all non-staff are scare to post in intro section.
Human are complex living thing and they express their view in different way. Getting to know their view in a single line is harder. That's why site's ban-list is getting bigger day by day.
At the end of the day you post a giveway or help or bonus or suggestion; you get rep or thanks. On the other hand you rep somebody you get responsibility for a long time. that why thanks to Vegas for taking away that responsibility & fear (I might get banned if the user exposed un-nec info) from me.
Now back to the topic, I guess what Dave tried to say that you should not say
'we are non-trading site, please change view '
or
'your view is not accepted here, read the rules'.
or something like that.
I would like to concur what Balauru said other day in irc that we are not communist.
thanks
fahim