Scammiest scammer award

[the hare]

i thought sombody already did, and got banned for having the audacity for doing so :whistling

It probably comes as no surprise that I dont altogether agree with that sort of heavy handed approach. Its all a bit futile really.

I do think its a bit hypocritical of you to critisise the sites moderators, for acting in exactly the same way as you acted in your role as a moderator.

You would have rolled over to the demands of a vendor, you would have taken whatever action was necessary to protect the business, regardless of the impact on the membership, and you would have handed out bans at the drop of a hat, deleted content, and locked threads.

So why was it OK when you did that, but not OK now ?

 

[Lightning McQueen]

It probably comes as no surprise that I dont altogether agree with that sort of heavy handed approach. Its all a bit futile really.

I do think its a bit hypocritical of you to critisise the sites moderators, for acting in exactly the same way as you acted in your role as a moderator.

You would have rolled over to the demands of a vendor, you would have taken whatever action was necessary to protect the business, regardless of the impact on the membership, and you would have handed out bans at the drop of a hat, deleted content, and locked threads.

So why was it OK when you did that, but not OK now ?

no that's wrong, completely. look at the emoticon scose got banned, there were some deletions of posts regarding toast, i know not if scose was mixed up in thoose threads, i didn't see. but he mentioned toast and he has banned next to his user name, it was a tongue in cheek comment. you such a boring old fart you've missed that.

on my watch if there was a complaint it would be looked at fairly, if a vendor complained of bad mouthing of their wares you just did some simple checks. good example would be vendor a complains that scuz poster b was telling porkies about their trading offices, a quick look at ip's showed scuz poster b couldn't have been trading from their london office, as he was in sydney australia! complaint from vendor a upheld and unfactual posts from scuzz poster b deleted.

yes i did lots, though i have to say it's more fun this side of the fence

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Being a mod on a t2w must be more stressful than trading itself.

no, trading more stressful, though i'm working on that.

 

[the hare]

on my watch if there was a complaint it would be looked at fairly...

The last time I looked, there was a denial that scose's ban was caused by his involvement in the DT complaint thread. The official line was that the thread had been disputed, and withdrawn until various points had been clarified.

Thats almost an insult to practically anyones intelligence.

DT did everything posible to try to resolve this issue, and the member making the acusations made no efforts to engage, or take up the offers of assistance. As Pete became increasingly upset with the situation, and started to lose self control and objectivity, it should come as no surprise that the opportunity for lulz, was seized amongst certain quarters.

Anyone reading that thread could determine beyond reasonable doubt that this was either a deliberate attempt to wind up DT (and they succeeded), or a case of mistaken identity etc. Anyone reading the thread could clearly see that DT was selling a downloadable product, they could see that he offered free trials, they could see that he didnt have access to credit card data, they could see that he bent over backwards to provide contact information, that he repeatedly asked for details of the transaction, and even suggested the customer should dispute the sale with paypal.

Until the point that DT lost it, and started making threats to involve solicitors, and sue for libel, he handled the situation well and with a great deal of credability.

The negative aspects of that thread, that could adversely effect his business, are the comments that he himself made !

This is a great example of a thread that needs no investigation at all, any damage to the vendor was self inflicted.

However, t2w have decided to involve themseleves, and if they decide to permenantly delete the thread, they'll quite justifiably be critisised.

I acknowlege that there will be times when disputes will arise, and of course t2w have to act in their own self interests, and thats understandable and fine, but this is a clear example where no such investigation was warrented. The attempted exchange between vendor and punter on that thread should tell anyone all they needed to know.

I do sympathise with DT, and I undertand his frustration with the situation, but he's done himself (or t2w) no favours with this heavy handed approach. T2W's super injunction is simply stupidity of the highest order.

And that's probably the end of another thread.

 

[pboyles]

I tried to warn him he was making it worse. Companies that professionally manage online reputations of businesses will do the absolute opposite of what he did, just ignore it and if it the posts start to rank highly in google then flood the Internet with fake positive reviews and articles.

 

[the hare]

I tried to warn him he was making it worse. Companies that professionally manage online reputations of businesses will do the absolute opposite of what he did, just ignore it and if it the posts start to rank highly in google then flood the Internet with fake positive reviews and articles.

I agree, it was absolutely pointless being drawn into that kind of no win situation.

As I said, the ONLY damaging comments in that thread where self inflicted, and if t2w decides to sweep that under the carpet in favour of a vendor, well... draw your own conclusions.

The sites disproportionate reponse to a storm in a tea cup, in the form of the super injunction deserves to be highlighted and discussed.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

The last time I looked, there was a denial that scose's ban was caused by his involvement in the DT complaint thread. The official line was that the thread had been disputed, and withdrawn until various points had been clarified.

Thats almost an insult to practically anyones intelligence.

DT did everything posible to try to resolve this issue, and the member making the acusations made no efforts to engage, or take up the offers of assistance. As Pete became increasingly upset with the situation, and started to lose self control and objectivity, it should come as no surprise that the opportunity for lulz, was seized amongst certain quarters.

Anyone reading that thread could determine beyond reasonable doubt that this was either a deliberate attempt to wind up DT (and they succeeded), or a case of mistaken identity etc. Anyone reading the thread could clearly see that DT was selling a downloadable product, they could see that he offered free trials, they could see that he didnt have access to credit card data, they could see that he bent over backwards to provide contact information, that he repeatedly asked for details of the transaction, and even suggested the customer should dispute the sale with paypal.

Until the point that DT lost it, and started making threats to involve solicitors, and sue for libel, he handled the situation well and with a great deal of credability.

The negative aspects of that thread, that could adversely effect his business, are the comments that he himself made !

This is a great example of a thread that needs no investigation at all, any damage to the vendor was self inflicted.

However, t2w have decided to involve themseleves, and if they decide to permenantly delete the thread, they'll quite justifiably be critisised.

I acknowlege that there will be times when disputes will arise, and of course t2w have to act in their own self interests, and thats understandable and fine, but this is a clear example where no such investigation was warrented. The attempted exchange between vendor and punter on that thread should tell anyone all they needed to know.

I do sympathise with DT, and I undertand his frustration with the situation, but he's done himself (or t2w) no favours with this heavy handed approach. T2W's super injunction is simply stupidity of the highest order.

And that's probably the end of another thread.

blimey, i did miss lots. i find it strange that after posting numerous posts, that republic just sat there with no further input, probably quite deliberatly.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

I agree, it was absolutely pointless being drawn into that kind of no win situation.

As I said, the ONLY damaging comments in that thread where self inflicted, and if t2w decides to sweep that under the carpet in favour of a vendor, well... draw your own conclusions.

The sites disproportionate reponse to a storm in a tea cup, in the form of the super injunction deserves to be highlighted and discussed.

i thought the super injunction was on scose discussions??

 

[the hare]

i thought the super injunction was on scose discussions??

It would appear so, but I'm sure most casual observers would suspect that his ban was at least influenced by the part he played in the DT thread. This has been officially denied, but I'm sure certain vexacious parties will already be privy to scose's version of events, and that information may even be made public.

This could be entirely coincidental. Coincidences do seam to occur, and at a frequency far higher than you might expect by random chance, but as someone who makes my living exploiting these kind of statistical events I have to concede that it could be coincidence, and scose has been involved in unrelated, and more serious shinnagins elsewhere

It still doesnt answer the question why a super injunction has been imposed.

Back in the day, members where openly informed of when and why a ban had been imposed (a great example being new traders ban for "not being very helpful")

These days, its practically a state secret. Its only a matter of time before they have Shillings and Carter Ruck issuing members with cease and deist notices and libel threats !

Anyway, all this talk of t2w conspiracy seams to have been a deliberate policy to derail the purpose of this thread which was of course to name and shame.

 

[DionysusToast]

It is fair to say I went over the top BUT...

My reaction was based on my interpretation of how anyone NEW to T2W might interpret the thread.

In terms of how people would view my reaction - once I could see that my accuser wanted to string it along, what I did both on AND off the board was intended to have the thread removed.

Now - feel free to request free access to everything I have so you can review it & say it's crap. I will certainly enjoy such a discussion. On the other hand, sh1t tends to stick and so I'd rather wipe it off.

Sense of humour will resume in 72 hours.

 

[pboyles]

So what did Scose get banned for, does anybody know?

 

[DionysusToast]

I don't know - if you want to know who is responsible for that thread being pulled -then the blame should lie with me. There's not a person on this planet that wants to hear me whining for more than 50 seconds.

The thing about the bans in some cases is that the post that caused the ban tends to get disappeared too. MajorDutch was an unfortunate exception in that his ***** posts stayed around long enough for me to see them.

Unfortunately my missus and daughter also saw them. My daughter is 2 and thought nothing of it. My missus on the other hand wants to know if those were normal size and if there is something that can be done to get me to errr... measure up...

 

[the hare]

My reaction was based on my interpretation of how anyone NEW to T2W might interpret the thread.

Having dealt with my fair share of half witted customers I understand your frustration.

I honestly think that most people would have seen you where genuinely trying to assist, and there was very little more than you could do. They would have seen that your attempts to communicate and understand the situation where being completely ignored.

I take the point that someone who didnt understand the sites anti vendor culture might not have picked up on the fact that certain remarks where made in the pursuit of lulz.

Given the differences in time zones, and the fact its a weekend, then unless you have have a decent firm of libel lawyers on a 24/7 retainer (and who can afford that in this day and age) I suspect that no legal threats where issued to t2w.

If thats the case (and I may be wrong), that would mean that by removing that content, t2w caved into the demands of a vendor, even in the absense of a solicitors letter.

On balance, I think in the circumstances they where probably right to remove the thread, HOWEVER, it provides an illustration of how easily vendors are able to exert pressure on the site, and it sets a dangerous precedent, and an example to unscrupulous operators, who might wish to abuse that situation.

Having been involved in this situation, would you say that it was particularly difficult for you to have that thread removed, or did t2w roll over without putting up too much of fight. An honest answer would be appreciated.

 

[the hare]

I don't know - if you want to know who is responsible for that thread being pulled -then the blame should lie with me.

The point of interest, is how much effort it took.

There's no shortage of names who cannot be named who had threads and posts deleted. On every occasssion, staff, moderators, and t2w management claim that the content was only removed under considerable duress, and legitimate and serious threats of legal action, that they believe that they might need to defend.

If I understand correctly, your post suggests you whinged at someone for less than a minute, and on that basis alone, the thread was removed.

That is in direct contradiction to the asurances that have been made to members previously. If you can moan for 50 seconds and have content pulled, how much effort is realistically required by an advertiser or official partner ?

If there is any element of truth in that comment, then it should raise some very serious concerns,

 

[DionysusToast]

I didn't have to apply pressure on T2W to have that removed.

I stated my case and offered to provide evidence.

T2W actually said that it'd look worse for me if it was removed and I should think about letting it run. I didn't agree but I didn't make any threats.

I didn't actually speak to the person who removed it. I was actually speaking to someone else @ T2W when it disappeared. Neither of us had noticed. At that point, continuing the conversation seemed a but pointless.

Right - bed time.

 

[the hare]

I didn't have to apply pressure on T2W to have that removed..

I appreciate your honesty.

I shouldnt be be shocked, but I am

 

[MoonRocket]

What a shame. I started that thread because that goose Republic was getting on my nerves. It was bedtime so I missed the very best of that thread.
No bedtime stories for Rocket.

The republic thread is now in the "Contested Threads" section

Can someone point me to the "Contested Thread" section.....Please!
Ah, by the way this thread raised my curiosity about the Toasts offerings.......
and I'm pretty interested.
It would appear Republic intentions were entirely inflammatory without any form of genuine complaint. Under those conditions I think the right thing is to delete any stuff that could harm the vender.
This talk of favouring venders in the threads............I have to wonder about the two threads that rubbish CMC and yet the threads remain and still CMC advertises here.
There is legitimacy in some of the complaints about CMC but with Republics complaint with the Toast, I doubt if there was. Hence it was the right thing remove the bad stuff.

And by the way.....Welcome back Scose

 

[Lightning McQueen]

you cannot be "pointed" to contested threads. it is a bin, right next door to "the" bin where the site garbage goes. we cannot see it, or read the threads within it.

the idea of the contested thread bin is to contain a thread, away from our eyes, while the contested bits are removed. if after contested bits are removed there's little left of the thread that makes sense it will either sit there forever or be moved to "the" bin. we may see your thread again maybe, who knows, don't hold your breath