Scamming Subforum Closed

[Dem]

The solution was simple, allow the continuation of Scammers...Beware posts, providing solid proof was also supplied in the form of screenshots.

Instead, we are now not allowed to name and shame atall.

One step closer to George Orwell's 1984, Equilibrium and any other Dictatorship & Mind Control philosophy you can think of.

[Johned]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Fine, but all the other scamming threads were copied over to the dead forum. Except the one that I mentioned has been removed, it's inaccessible, and there is no sign of it on this site (even when looking through history of the person who posted it).

So my question is why the conversion/policy applied differently to the uber-friend of the forum admins than it does to the other "scammers" who were mentioned in posts on that thread.

Rule #23 was updated to include chat logs - if we are thinking of the same post.

[safara]

I think Felicity has a point. +rep for Felicity.

Not wanting to get into the discussion of what is, and what is not allowed on EF. I love EF and spend a lot of time here. I do agree that it can be a difficult thing to sort the wheat from the chaff. And I have no problems with rules etc. It is not my forum, and if I want to hang around I will abide by the rules as far as I can. But I do have a problem with the favouritism on a supposedly 'Independant' forum that seems to have been displayed.

All other Scamming posts are there, but un-replyable to. Fine. No problems there. A useful reference of known scammers etc till the date it was taken down and moved. How come one thread has been removed, while all the rest remain??

[aridash]

Originally Posted by Johned

Rule #23 was updated to include chat logs - if we are thinking of the same post.

kinda convenient retrospective application of the rules though. the discussion in question didnt occur to me earlier (personally i dont see as it as scamming as such, just good old fashoin tit for tat amongst the aristorcracy), but in retrospect its obvious that this spured the change to the rules. Which is sad, as it mean a little bit of the sence of community is lost.

[Fin]

Originally Posted by aridash

kinda convenient retrospective application of the rules though. the discussion in question didnt occur to me earlier (personally i dont see as it as scamming as such, just good old fashoin tit for tat amongst the aristorcracy), but in retrospect its obvious that this spured the change to the rules. Which is sad, as it mean a little bit of the sence of community is lost.

Sorry Aridash; cannot agree with that phrase "a little bit".

+rep to Felicity.

[711]

There is no "favoritism" here. As I explained quite clearly on IRC, if anything there was REVERSE favoritism. If TanMan had posted a private MSN chatlog of ANY other people, he would have been banned immediately and the thread removed. Precisely to avoid accusations of favoritsm, my hands were tied.

I thought the rule about posting PMs and such was clear enough before, but TanMan apparently wanted to use semantics, and said "well the rules say nothing about chat logs". To me and most people I know, it is common sense that one should not post any form of private communications on a public forum without explicit consent of the parties involved, and regardless of the source of the logs. After this incident, it became clear that a more specific rule was needed that include email, chat logs and such.

[Einstein]

Originally Posted by 711

To me and most people I know, it is common sense that one should not post any form of private communications on a public forum without explicit consent of the parties involved, and regardless of the source of the logs.

I think everyone posted ingame screenies of pm's in the scamming forum?

[711]

Originally Posted by Einstein

I think everyone posted ingame screenies of pm's in the scamming forum?

I did not create the Scamming forum, I inherited it, and had issues with it from the beginning. Also, Mindbuster shared the history of that subforum with me, and he never really wanted to add it in the first place, for all the reasons I listed in my earlier posts in this thread.

Again, as I have discussed on IRC (check your logs), I cannot make all the changes I would like to EF overnight. As some issues rear up and call for attention, they increase in priority. This issue with TanMan's thread simply sped up the removal of the scamming forum, which I had planned to do anyway.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by 711

I did not create the Scamming forum, I inherited it, and had issues with it from the beginning. Also, Mindbuster shared the history of that subforum with me, and he never really wanted to add it in the first place, for all the reasons I listed in my earlier posts in this thread.

That's fine, and yet you chose to retrospectively apply the new rules only to the one post that was about a "forum friend" (I'll leave it at that, you know what I mean).

As Einstein mentioned, I'm pretty sure the other posts that you transfered over included private chat logs related to the scam .. as that was one of the rules of that old forum that they be included. Yet, all of those were transfered over without problem.

My issue is not related to that particular player, or even that post. My issue is with the fact that you are chosing to apply the rules differently, and the only reason I can see for it is favoritism.

I'd hate to think that this forum is going to moderate the news shared here (on whatever subject, in whichever thread) based upon how it makes the "forum friends" look.

[Einstein]

Personally i think it's great the scamming forum is gone, it's nothing for a big forum like this because making up a fake scamming thread is way too easy, even with screenshots. And ones reputation can get fucked pretty quickly.

I just don't like favoritism.