If You Buy From Napsgear You’re a Legit Retarded

[Millard]

Color me confused if this is what a ban looks like:

View attachment 152894

He was banned but posting literally 25 minutes after you quoted me in this thread?

He was banned immediately after the incident in question. You know that this happened earlier in the summer. Or are you really this clueless?

 

[Millard]

I think Millard is confusing the PPL doxxing with Naps. Naps has VIP status and has never been banned, but maybe I missed it? I love the chaos here, so I don't think I did.

You are not just willfully ignorant but purposefully ignoring the truth.

 

[Millard]

Guess so...

I am just used to "bans" for serious things like doxxing threats being you know.... actual BANS which mean you don't get to come back. Ever.

No teeth to them without that. Pointless really.

This is the ONLY legitimate issue I've seen raised.

Generally, limited bans successfully encourage violators to follow the rules. Permanent bans are given to those who repeatedly and unapologetically continue to violate the rules.

 

[dennia]

Ok boss but do you belive that one month or something temporary is enough for what he did? Is a fair punishment that?
You are the boss do the things as you wish but if I was the boss I would do things in other way. Much different and something that what he deserves as much as I could do in position of the administrator.
Is your show run as you wish

 

[Millard]

Who is whining about being victims? We’re complaining about what appears to be a blatant double standard.

You are whining about being victims of a double standard which is bullshit.

He’s using a template to post, which is very easy to automate with a Python script. Same format every time. You really believe that his customers are submitting the endless perfectly-framed pictures with the labels always clearly visible that he uses in his posts?

In all my time of ordering gear I’ve never even considered sending my sources unboxing pictures of the illicit package that they just send me.

Colour me incredulous.

I am skeptical of everything. I think everyone should be free to share their skepticism as well. But better yet is to have evidence to back up your claims rather than present them as fact.

 

[dennia]

This is the ONLY legitimate issue I've seen raised.

Generally, limited bans successfully encourage violators to follow the rules. Permanent bans are given to those who repeatedly and unapologetically continue to violate the rules.

Well in that case I wish that you was the judge when I was in the court. You would gave me probation.

 

[QueenBee]

That's a bit too far.

Hey!

 

[QueenBee]

Please post the evidence you have to prove a bot and/or automated script is being used to manipulate the forum. Instead of whining about being victims, do something productive and disclose this information to me. I don't see it on my end and our WAF settings are blocking practically every type of automated attack given the recent DDoS we've experience.

looking good in that avi...

 

[grey]

You know that this happened earlier in the summer. Or are you really this clueless?

How could I know that?

This is why I asked.

So yes. I was in fact "clueless" about this ban duration that only a board admin could possibly know. My bad (somehow)?

You know users can't see these things right?

 

[Millard]

How could I know that?

This is why I asked.

So yes. I was in fact "clueless" about this ban duration that only a board admin could possibly know. My bad (somehow)?

You know users can't see these things right?

My apologies. It certainly sounded like you thought you knew what you were talking about. And yes, members can see the comments that resulted in the ban and the discussion that followed. It's not like negative comments written about or damaging comments made by sources are deleted or anything (in case you didn't know that either).

 

[grey]

My apologies. It certainly sounded like you thought you knew what you were talking about

Beleive this largely stemmed from my not understanding that bans were short term thing for this sort of offense.


As I mentioned, this sort of thing is often regarded as an order of magnitude more serious than spam or advertising suspension offenses. Someone like Naps (who is no stranger to the internet) threatening to out, dox, or SWAT (his threat to get someone targeted by LEOs is a SWAT by ANY measure) most often results in a an actual ban for life.

So I was very confused when you mentioned he was banned when he was still actively posting. Had no idea it was in the past.

 

[Millard]

Beleive this largely stemmed from my not understanding that bans were short term thing for this sort of offense.


As I mentioned, this sort of thing is often regarded as an order of magnitude more serious than spam or advertising suspension offenses. Someone like Naps (who is no stranger to the internet) threatening to out, dox, or SWAT (his threat to get someone targeted by LEOs is a SWAT by ANY measure) most often results in a an actual ban for life.

So I was very confused when you mentioned he was banned when he was still actively posting. Had no idea it was in the past.

Fair enough. Thanks.

 

[Test_Subject]

Beleive this largely stemmed from my not understanding that bans were short term thing for this sort of offense.


As I mentioned, this sort of thing is often regarded as an order of magnitude more serious than spam or advertising suspension offenses. Someone like Naps (who is no stranger to the internet) threatening to out, dox, or SWAT (his threat to get someone targeted by LEOs is a SWAT by ANY measure) most often results in a an actual ban for life.

So I was very confused when you mentioned he was banned when he was still actively posting. Had no idea it was in the past.

Cdnguy got permanently banned for WAY less. Rightfully so, but still.

But whatever. It is what it is. Naps got what he wanted. I’m just going to talk to the people I enjoy talking to and stay out of sponsor threads.

 

[Millard]

You guys disappoint me. You can post the same message again and again and again but change the font each time / change the color each time / number the message sequentially / etc / etc but it is still spam if there is no additional substance to the message.

So posting the same thing over and over with a few supervised variables isn't the same? There is absolutely no doubt this is what's going on! It's impossible that it is anything else.

It is the same thing except when one of the variables is something substantive that has been regularly demanded by members from practically every other source on the forum e.g. original product photos, lab reports, etc.

 

[Test_Subject]

You guys disappoint me. You can post the same message again and again and again but change the font each time / change the color each time / number the message sequentially / etc / etc but it is still spam if there is no additional substance to the message.

Serious question: is it OK to repeatedly post fake reviews with fake photos as long as the reviews and photos change?

 

[wsmwannabe]

But whatever. It is what it is. Naps got what he wanted. I’m just going to talk to the people I enjoy talking to and stay out of sponsor threads.

This right here is a problem, and that’s not a knock on you. The issue is these punishment techniques are training people not to repeatedly call a source out and I have seen many people on here discouraged from trying to do the vetting against naps or whomever else, or it’ll be a much softer stance against a source due to the potential of getting banned for a soft ass reason like spamming a thread.

@Millard call it what you want but whether you like it or not, you’re training your regulars to not approach vendors for vetting.

 

[MindlessWork]

This right here is a problem, and that’s not a knock on you. The issue is these punishment techniques are training people not to repeatedly call a source out and I have seen many people on here discouraged from trying to do the vetting against naps or whomever else, or it’ll be a much softer stance against a source due to the potential of getting banned for a soft ass reason like spamming a thread.

@Millard call it what you want but whether you like it or not, you’re training your regulars to not approach vendors for vetting.

In a way we are actually HELPING Millard with the vetting and also as part of the harm reduction mission. Also people like @SkankHunt doing testing of product is also a big plus.

To be honest Millard should be thanking the community for helping make this board a great place and upholding the harm reduction credo.

 

[dennia]

In a way we are actually HELPING Millard with the vetting and also as part of the harm reduction mission. Also people like @SkankHunt doing testing of product is also a big plus.

To be honest Millard should be thanking the community for helping make this board a great place and upholding the harm reduction credo.

Without the community and all the members that are helping this would be a empty forum that no one would count.
Without the people forum would not have any value same as a singer without the fans will be just a guy that no one cares about and not a superstar

 

[Millard]

Serious question: is it OK to repeatedly post fake reviews with fake photos as long as the reviews and photos change?

You can assume everything is fake. That is fine. And everyone has always been free to express their opinions on the matter.

I prefer to have evidence whether the reviews are real or manufactured or other issues such as whether it involves the use of an automated script or bots.

At any rate, I'm not the arbitrator on who is telling the truth. Members should make their case, ideally with evidence, to hold sources accountable.

If you can prove this action will be taken. Just adding the adverb obviously doesn't count as definitive proof.

 

[Millard]

Naps got what he wanted.

You are still clueless.