Either corrupt staff or regression in quality of staff

@BlackBlasses can you or anyone on staff comment on this case by the way? It's a great/huge precedent of the staff taking things out of context to push a certain narrative based on what they feel rather than using sound logic and ensuring they mitigate false positives. Multiple times in this thread, and apparently in the screenshot @White posted it seems like staff was over-confident in their decisions. Instead of remaining impartial, once they make up their mind it seems like staff will continue building evidence specifically revolving around their initial thoughts, rather than allowing evidence to affect their thinking.

Can staff de-classify this case (outside of direct personal information being leaked) so we can see what went wrong? And what was implemented since then to ensure staff do not make the same mistakes leading to an outcome where someone innocent is permanently banned?

Also, was White ever provided any type of restitution for this horrible situation created by the staff? Was his name ever formally cleared to the same level it was tarnished? Did he even receive a simple apology from any staff members?

 

How is it still difficult for you to understand that the norm is for there to only be one design delivered, in any project, unless more are specifically promised and not the other way around? Just because Leb was kind enough to implement a design that I created for Bert, free of charge by the way, doesn't mean he had any obligation to do it. And just because he may have in any way insinuated that he could potentially do a third design implementation out of courtesy does not mean he has any obligation to do it.

There is a different between web development and graphic design.

Did you even bother reading the precedent that @King set in the report I mentioned in OP? Do you even understand how the precedent rule works on Sythe or are you aware of its existence?

And actually I don't want you to think I'm only taking one part of your argument here, or whatever you want to call it so I'll add on this edit:

How are you finding it the most logical conclusion for the "default" to be an infinite design agreement for a finite amount of payment?

Edit 2-- trying to avoid spending all day here but just to tie this to the precedent above, and to attempt to be as impartial as possible, the most logical thing would be that it is neither one or many, it's somewhere in between, called a reasonable amount and there is no indication that UKF did anything unreasonable or out of the norm when it comes to implementing website changes.

This could also be logical, because UKF also set some precedent.

Imagine @Pirate if this was a gold seller to simplify things for you and not overheat your brain, if this gold seller has always done it a certain way and the majority of people are satisfied then you can assume the next trade will also be conducted in a similar fashion, or do you want a contract per gold sale too?

 

Okay and this was provided twice, Once for 2.5k and once for free. With a friendly offer for a third design for free. If you offered to take your friend out for a meal and then he pissed you off are you legally obligated to take him out for another meal just because last year he paid your business to cater his wedding?

What? if your assumptions benefit one party more than the other that is a show of bias. Regardless of how much it benefits that one party that is still by definition BIAS. Read a fucking book lmao, In this statement you also agree that any outcome that benefits bert would indicate bias..

I highlighted the statement specifically so you don't get overwhelmed with all of your logic falling apart.

edit: this part was probably too vague. He literally admits that any ruling in berts favour would indicate bias in the exact same sentence he says he was not biased.

Also yes I can say he, while being overwhelmed with his logic being picked apart I would like to point out to the jury he stopped using the terms WE and is now using the truthfully appropriate I/Me's and we can now gather this was a decision made by Pirate himself. (yes Pirate this is without making "Assumptions" WOW!)

How can you say this when your post was literally a picture of 3 sentences out of 5 full pictures of discord logs sent to you from UKF.

 

I could let the above quotes speak for themselves, but could there now be consideration for having staff members post for themselves rather than collectively? Because again, it's very unclear to everyone else who is actually involved and it is why the community is being blamed by staff members for "confusing" things.

 

Also any reason it seems that at least Gladiator stated since QBD's vote was "unanimous" every staff member was involved... but for Lebgh0st it seems like a single staff member actually handled the whole thing (at least based on Pirate's statement.) Again, just based this on what staff have said so far so knowing it's from staff it may or may not be true or verified.

Under any logic to make staff look better in this situation, I would assume it'd be that it is based on the value of the trades, and let's combine the reports against QBD, around 14-15K USD. And then let's assume Lebgh0st was just reported by Bert (even though he was also reported by someone else) for 2.5K USD. 15K/2.5K = 6, so we can at least assume it would be fair for Lebgh0st to at least get 15/6 = 2-3 staff members, right? Just to make sure the correct determination is made, at this "correct" for as "correct" as staff can be in the current state? Obviously it was found to be highly important everyone weighed in for QBD, why not Lebgh0st at the same ratio? And again, remember I'm giving you guys a 2x handicap, so realistically if you want to start arguing specifics it would be more like 5 staff members versus 15 for the Lebgh0st website development situations versus QBD.

This is the third offshoot I've done discussing different aspects of this mess, its hard to not get messy with a non-threaded reply system on Xenforo. So I hope this isn't seen as an opportunity to derail the thread in the direction staff or others want to take it and everyone's concerns are still addressed.

 

Okay this is just too comical at this point, I have to point this out now. Second staff member being completely condescending about this and the public being "confused" when they're contradicting themselves.

 

At this point you should stop providing input here then and perhaps consider having another staff member post the outcome to disputes, even if you are involved in the decision-making process because it would be difficult in such setting to avoid misunderstanding things, and for users to avoid misunderstanding you. I'm only saying this because you yourself have determined this to be a valid excuse for doing a set of completely contradictory statements.

 

@Sythe your staff member just stated above that he doesn't know the difference between all staff being involved/voting on an outcome for a report, and just him being involved in the decision on his own, and he sees that as being a grammar/auto correct issue. And then he makes a completely unrelated statement about it being brought up to the staff lounge, which has nothing to do with the decision being made by either him or other staff members.

You are trusting this man, who cannot even communicate at a basic level, to make decisions on 2-3 page disputes written in English.

 

What a shitty fucking cop out again,
You can't just try to weasel your way out of decisions with such terrible arguments.

You entrapped yourself with your own fucking statements, everything you said had nothing to do with not knowing the language, you did a complete 180 once you were proven to be wrong and you are now trying to use "This isnt my first language" as a pathetic excuse instead of just admitting you are wrong, but holy fuck if you guys cant even admit you are wrong when I literally had to dox someone to prove it why would you admit it now?


This thread is literally a showcase that staff are either too fucking scared to have the proper discourse or are not capable of doing so.

To the rest of staff then, How can you allow someone who does not understand the basic rules of a language to read someone's statements decide their intent and then make a judgment call on it?

This man barely has the capability to hold a simple conversation/debate without going back on his own words.


This is not a bash on you specifically pirate this is a showcase of how incompetent the staff team has become as a whole.

 

Stop playing the victim card for sympathy.

It has nothing to do with grammar.

You stated two completely opposite things and full sentences surrounding them. (this is why I made the 180 statement) *I smell a liiiiiieeeeeee*

Also once again, since you love assuming so much it does not surprise me you assume intent on statements made between UKF and Bert but my argument is how can someone who admits to not understanding grammar (literally the baseline for figuring out intent on a statement over text) be in charge of making judgement calls based on those statements.

 

@Sythe by the way if I have your attention something's going on that's actually pretty fucked up regardless of what you think about any of the rest of the thread.

An admin on your site is able to allow a user that staff are clearly friends with to bypass a rule staff seem to have made up, disrupting the free market.

They're friends with him because they're posting on his wall:



Staff disallow other members to sell an account without screenshots, example here:
Selling 394k rp

There doesn't appear to be any rule that actually states this needs to be done, but that's from checking where I could with Sinkovsky. Assuming there is, the issue here is still that friends of staff can bypass the rule.

Staff just told this guy if it's too risky, don't sell it. But for their friend, they'll make an exception to reduce the risk/bypass a rule. Sorry for creating more work for you, these two situations involve something that requires a higher level than administrator at this point to chime in if it's to be done properly.

 

Why comment on something you clearly know nothing about?

Not a single staff member who I had dm's with who were being extremely adamant and cocky about the situation reached out to me to apologize.

So stop trying to be involved in things you are not.

They have literally contradicted themself on this 3-4 times in this thread alone, maybe you have some reading to do.

I am making it personal? He is the one who was involved in the decision, he is directly involved in a decision over thousands of dollars, This is what you sign up for with staff. I have no sympathy for someone who can not do a proper job of something. Stop trying to white knight staff with 0 arguments when you have clearly not read the thread.

Are you arguing someone who does not have a proper grasp of english grammar should be in charge of deciding intent?

These are all statements he has made about himself, not the other way around.

Making it personal then linking this gif? How is this personal? its a 6/10 meme at best.

 

Please remember this is the TLDR of this thread and not someplace to hash out personal issues

 

This is why I retired from the staff team in the first place, if you called out an upper staff member on something they did wrong and you explained why what they did was wrong they would rather ignore it or fight you on it even if they knew they're in the wrong.

Edit - Also worth mentioning after I retired from the staff team I applied to rejoin the team like a year later and my application got denied for arguing with upper staff team as one of the reasons of my denial which is really dumb because staff members shouldn't agree with each other on everything, good healthy disagreements should be encouraged.

I'm well over it now and am staff on another site just as big as Sythe that is fine when there's disagreements among staff as we don't let our egos get the best of us.