Thread: ban the people in the intro-sec who think trading is good.....

Originally Posted by Dan

Agreed. Once the intro makeover is complete I would love to see this rule implemented. We have enough good members coming into the site, no point taking the bad ones too.

But thinking trading is ok doesn't necessarily make you bad, but ignorant.

Originally Posted by Sam91

Thats fair enough if they thought trading was a good thing. But it specifically says read the rules... If midgets did read the rules there would be no doubt what there answer would be for trading. Therefore if you don't read the rules you don't belong here

Despite the rules on trading here, when answering the question, some people just give their honest answer.

I think that what has been done in the near past is ok, since I think people shouldn't be judged despite of their first answer, in fact you can also be as strict if you consider the speedtest and the ratio edit screen shots, most people dont get it right on the first try. This might be also true regarding the trading question.

I am a member of the bit torrent community for some time, and let me tell you that before that this great site was conceived, trading was a common practice, therefore its understandable to see trading as a "good" thing.

I am a part of this great community and I think people deserves a chance, we all learn from mistakes, being the most important thing that it becomes clear what that mistake was. Lets say with the new rules some one answers that trading is ok, in the new rules will that person be told that what he/she just said was a mistake and why?

However if banning people who says trading is ok is your conception of a better site so be it, I respect it, but I do not agree.

Originally Posted by SCavenJA

But thinking trading is ok doesn't necessarily make you bad, but ignorant.

That's too bad, if they don't read the rules they bring it on themselves. (once the new system is implemented that is)

I'm in the camp of 'give-them-one-warning' to explain (due to a possible genuine misinterpretation). It they don't change their profile/ intro soon after then bring the hammer down. I've been around the race track a few decades and have learnt that no one is going to get it right first time, every time. If the new rules leave no room for latitude then so be it. But you could lose some good potential members due to a minor unintentional hiccup.

As a possible blanket solution, when the new rules are brought in we could implement something lke: if they post something in direct controversy to the rules, they are banned for 48 hours, with an email sent stating they were banned for not reading site rules and breaking site rules.

The 48 hours gives them plenty of time to read, re-read and re-reread all the site rules so they know exactly where they went wrong... they then have a further 24 hours to fix their application prior to it being auto-closed.

The ban should be done by IP address so the user cannot post a duplicate intro.

I disagree with coldflame. If they post something that is contradictory to our clearly expressed policies then out they go. They're done. We have enough good applicants, we don't need to waste our time on the people who clearly didn't read the Rules and posting guidelines. And if they didn't read them the first time, when they were clearly instructed to read them before they filled out the intro, then screw 'em, we have better things to do. Though I do agree, an IP ban isn't foolproof but would help keep nincompoops out.

That's another way of doing business, and I honestly agree and support that also.

Are you saying flutrose, that our bans aren't IP bans now?

I don't know how our bans work, coldflame, only our mods know that. And they can't give out that information for security's sake.

Ok here's the thing:

The rules state: "Trading! We do not allow trading ANYWHERE on this forum!!"

The intro question states: "What are your views on trading invites?"

If the applicant responds with something along the lines of: "I don't see a problem with it", does not necessarily mean they haven't read or are unaware of the rules, but rather, just giving their honest answer.

As I pointed out before, banning someone like that would not only deprive them of being better educated and learning more as to why trading IS a problem, but also may encourage them to seek other sources where trading is allowed, thus adding to the problem of trading, as most who trade are unaware of the impacts trading can cause.

My suggestion: After their views, pose a yes/no question: "Would you trade invites here?"

If they answer "yes" then it'd be clear that they've disregarded the rules, AND THEN, it'd be a rightful ban.