Bartertown.com

Gentlemen, thank you for your patience. I am reinstating your posting rights pending the posting of my decision(s) regarding your conduct. Work and family permitting (my daughter's come down with bronchiolitis) I will have a cogent reply within 48 hours.

Thanks, Lin.

All my best to your daughter. That sucks.


Eric

Okay. I've talked with a couple moderators, and MB came up with a suggestion I liked far better than my original notion for disciplinary action. See, MB's background is in law enforcement and he's big into things like (wait for it) Community Service, attitude during infraction, and that sort of thing.

The question then arises: What would constitute community service on a freakin' web forum? I'm still wrestling with that, so I thought I would turn that one out to the community as a whole. Barring moderator or Watchman duty, which is voluntary and somewhat of a privileged status, what could constitute community service?

However, that leaves a larger question unanswered regarding BCI/Iching's multiple accounts. This must first be resolved.
BCI did notify myself and Adam about his multiple accounts after someone spammed the living HELL out of his trader rating. Adam also fixed his trade rating. So, regarding the specific instance of his having multiple accounts there isn't an issue. We just haven't gotten around to combining the accounts yet.
On the other hand, there is a very big issue with him using his two accounts. Nowhere in the rules does it state or imply that one may use their multiple accounts, or that there is a grandfather clause regarding any of the rules (but the grandfather clause is kind of irrelevant).
Here's the entire text of the multiple account rule.

Rule#2: Multiple User Accounts: One User Account Per Person, One Person Per User Account ONLY. EVER!
Having multiple accounts does not make one look like a trustworthy person. In fact, everyone I've suspended or banned for multiple accounts in the past has said the same thing: "I do that to generate more interest in my own stuff and jack my prices!"
That's not acceptable. So, since this rule didn't make the transition I am reinstating it. Retroactively and with extreme prejudice. Also, do not think you can vanish for a while after getting a bad rep and then come back with a new username. We will find out eventually.
Furthermore, you may not share your Bartertown user account with anyone else. The only exception to this may occur with administrative permission only, and that's when a minor has an account and their parent or legal guardian is 'looking over their shoulder.' If you're a minor and your parent wants to see what you're doing here or post as you, have them contact me. I will require some manner of proof that they are who they say they are.

Note the distinct lack of text allowing the use of multiple accounts at all. Yeah, BCI told us that he had multiple accounts Duly noted. I wasn't crazy about the ITL rating, but Adam can yank that too.

Then, for no reason I can discern he decides to use the second (I-Ching2.0) account in the Third Person to generate support for his other account (BCI) in a specious argument with MM.

That's the part I find unacceptable and as-yet unexplained. The precedents are clear, and they all point towards banning BCI/I-Ching 2.0.

As you can tell, I am undecided on exact consequences for both parties. I'm willing to listen to a few well-reasoned statements, but this will not turn into a complaint-fest. Do note that both parties have honored my suspension of posting privileges for rather a long time. I think this thread will close for review on Thursday at 2100 (that's 9:00pm). That should give everyone who has something to say time to say it.

I have an idea.

Community service is supplying the community with a service (duh..)
But giving them privileged positions, or any kind of real power would be a bad idea, however it is possible to give them responsibility for something like rebooting the conversion contest.

Add a clause that they in that regard can only issue statements approved by both parts (for the teamwork value..) and they can argue amongst themselves in PMs instead.

They might actually have fun, but would also need to think about rules, handle other peoples OT nonsense, and most importantly work together, to give us a service we lack...

Edit:
It is really interesting that this forum makes these situations possible.
Will someone accept actual punishment (beyond the usual ban) for inclusion in this society?
If so, why? Because its a way to earn money? Get opportunities?
Its fun to see the development of virtual worlds....

I've been lurking on this discussion for a while. My personal opinion is that you ban the I-Ching account until it can be combined with BCIs normal account and then you suspend the BCI account for a short period.

With a 212 rating he's clearly proven himself to be a good trader and an asset to the community in that capacity. The underlying intent of the no multiple accounts rule (as I understand it, and I could be wrong) is to maintain the integrity of the forums and keep trading honest/somewhat safe. Making sure people know they are dealing with a specific person who can be tracked achieves this end. BCI, however, was not using his account to undermine the integrity of the forums, in fact he had been specifically trying to avoid that. There's no point to ban BCI permanently when there's been no harm or foul other than some bickering on the forum (though to be fair it was fairly childish on all sides).

So I'm suggesting something that would constitute a deviation from the rules, but sometimes you have to make exceptions to the rules because they can't account for a situation that arises. I think accomplishes more of a just result than a ban for something that, in the grand scheme of the forums was rather slight.

my 2 cents:

Ban the I-Ching account (i think that was the plan anyhow)
keep the BCI account.

lock MM and BCI from the discussion and q/a forums for 2 weeks.

fair, concise and everything is handled.

I'm not sure how someone with a 212 rating using an alternate account is an asset to the community. Especially when the account is used to mess with another member in the forum area. Not adding up in my head.

BCI's rating leads me to the conclusion that he's even more responsible for his actions becasue he's had plenty of time to know the letter of the law, as well as the spirit of the law. The fact that he used the 2nd account the way he did (as a 3rd party) is unacceptable behavoir.

Your trade reference is an indication of what to expect from you in future trades. His actions have shown that there is a potential for questionable behavoir.

I suggest dropping his FB rating to ZERO. A nice clean slate for him to restart his reputation.

BCI/I-Ching 2.0 ought to know better than to use multiple accounts. I agree with a ban. I really do not see any opportunity for community service unless it involves him leaving BT and not returning.

Linrandir wrote::rulez:

Okay. I've talked with a couple moderators, and MB came up with a suggestion I liked far better than my original notion for disciplinary action. See, MB's background is in law enforcement and he's big into things like (wait for it) Community Service, attitude during infraction, and that sort of thing.

The question then arises: What would constitute community service on a freakin' web forum? I'm still wrestling with that, so I thought I would turn that one out to the community as a whole. Barring moderator or Watchman duty, which is voluntary and somewhat of a privileged status, what could constitute community service?

Not sure how one might go about this; but for Community Service, request that the offenders' (current and future) try to drum up business for the site? Actually contact various miniature painting services, on line sales, etc with an officially sanctioned offer for banner advertisements. Not sure of the details or even viability but it's about the only thing to occur to me that would be of benefit to BarterTown under these constraints.
Just a thought.

I think flagg has a great idea. It sucks to drop a rating down to zero after all this time, but it is better than being banned. Keep in mind, if this was someone that has only been on the site for 6 months, the ban would have come down very quickly. Lin has been generous enough to open this up to discussion and I think flagg hit the nail on the head. Since BCI has been around and established a good rep, he should at least be given another chance.

Rules should be applied evenly across the board.

any variation and wavering of applying the rules brings into doubt the integrity of those rules. it simply makes the rules guidelines open to interpretation and abuse.

the #6 rule is one of the bigest rules here and it was abused and broken. I dont see what the issue is and why this is open to discussion....period.

Smilbuta,

I definitely see your point and think that is just as valid an option as my suggestion.

I don't believe I've traded with BCI and definitely don't know him personally, so I'm not vested in any way. I just want to voice my opinion.

Had the account been used to dodge the 7 day standard or been used for ITL abuse, banning would be the only appropriate action.

In my eyes, this case is different because the 2nd account, which the command team knew about, was used for a totally different purpose... to drum up support for his cause in an argument (Correct me if I'm off on that).

Based on his reported performance up until this incident, he's had good feedback. I don't know that we should throw the baby out with the bath water in this instance.

As far as the community service is concerned, I'd say scrap the idea completely. I disagree with asking someone who was just put in "time out" to contact the public as a representative of the community.

I say time served and Zero the feedback.

flagg07 wrote: I say time served and Zero the feedback.

Valid points Flagg, I concur with the quoted opinion above..

I'll throw in my two cents on this one as well:

1. 1st off, as far as I know, this is the first time this situation comes up. Therefore, we shouldn't look at similar offenses for a solution, but rather as a way to find a solution for this situation.

2. I always understood that multiple accounts were forbidden to prevent scammers/thieves from presenting a danger to the community when it comes to trades/sales. The multiple accounts in this case were used in a unique situation, and though it broke the rules, I'm not sure a ban is the solution. One account has to go, that's a given. I assume the owner of the accounts would rather have the one with the least amount of references be removed.

3. I can't say I'd approve of bringing the trade references to 0 either. One mistake, especially a non trade-related one, shouldn't remove years of successful participation in the community. Because the offense isn't trade-related here... I'd recommend leaving the user's trade rating out of it.

4. And yet, there's been a clear breach of the rules here. So what should be done? I'd advocate nuking one of the accounts (likely the I-Ching 2.0 one) and suspending its owner for a month or two. If that isn't acceptable, is it possible to prevent someone from posting in certain areas of the boards? Maybe this would be a better solution than an outright ban?

Banning someone who has a considerable amount of successful references for an offence that isn't trade-related would be a disservice to the community at this point.

That's my two cents, take them for what you will.

My opinion is sorta similar to flaggs... I was thinking initially of halving his rating.. but that opens up folks with say 10 rep asking for a halving in a similar situation.. so I agreed with the wiped out rating idea.

thinking more.. the 2 account issue is not as bad as the fact he USED both, after telling the Powers That Be about it. That is more a case of not respecting the Admins in my opinion, and at least a month or 2 of suspended account privledges.. if not an outright ban.

-P