Bartertown.com

OK,

Since I was friendly with BCI/I Ching 2.0/Stephen Kolostyak, I reckon I need to get this post off the ground.

As I said, I consider BCI to be a friend. He has never accosted me (as is his modus operandi). He helped me when we had simultaneous trades going on with the same user, for the same item. I made him privy to a couple of "bad traders in training" that I noticed (dual accounts, banned users trying to come back, people banned from other sites), and Stephen took the issue farther. I guess I've been behind the scenes.

After reading Lin's post and seeing Stephen's repsonses, I am somewhat taken aback, especially considering the appeal I made on his behalf.

Since that time, I have come to know MM a little better, and I do realize that BCI is, as I told MM on the day BCI was banished, callous in his dealings with people who don't think the way he does. In the "battles" between BCI and MM, I still believe that both were at fault. I cannot condone, however, the rules violations commited by Mr. Kolostyak. I don't consider the Rule 6 violations quite as severe, since the definition of "politeness" is relative. The Violations of the Dual Account rule, and the Self Posting Rule are what has done him in.

In defense of Stephen: I remember him from another forum, EldarOnline, where he had a similar attitude. He was tireless in his pursuit of catching the "bad guy", as he did a few years ago here on Bartertown. No offense to Insidius, but I-Ching 2.0 was the original Bartertown Vigilante. He was dedicated to ridding our neighborhood of the "lesser" element.

My comment a few days ago, pertaining to the Bartertown Watch, was a message that I should have more clear in sending: Spend more time catching the bad guys, and less time telling folks they have posted in the wrong place (my general feeling about "law enforcement" in the first place). My apologies to those who may be offended by my frankness. I believe that scammers have no place here, When I hear a report of a possible scam, I find it wise to investigate further. Sometimes I find nothing, but sometimes, people are correct in their reports. This is a great thing I learned from Stephen Kolostyak (BCI): If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's probably going to smell like a duck, and it's up to something funky, and we don't need it here on Bartertown.

I'll agree that Rule 6 is vague. Honestly, that was deliberately done in order to encourage people to think before they post. It works most of the time, and since the staff are all volunteers, I don't feel the need to subject them (or me!) to abuse without recourse. As far as BCI goes, those were utterly incidental to the rule violations he committed.

I was frankly saddened to note the insincerity of the "have a nice day" and other salutations in his communications. We had spoken previously regarding a situation with another user (bum trade, as I recall) and BCI was fairly polite and easy to get along with. It always bugs me when people get nasty when they don't get their way, but I suppose it stems from a basic misunderstanding of how I do things here.

Hence, the new line in my signature about administrative transparency. To paraphrase (and twist): Ask me your questions, I'll tell you no lies.

About the Watch...rules are rules. The Watch isn't "law enforcement" per se. They can't edit or move posts, but they act as a buffer and additional assistance for the moderators and admin. I'm glad we have them, frankly, because we have all the rules in place for good reasons. A lot of people don't read the rules, and if a Watch member gets to someone who, however inadvertently, violated a rule before a mod (or I) does, there's no actual formal "on the record" warning.

Besides, we catch the "bad guys" when they screw up somehow. More often than not, that's because a user notices something unusual and brings it to our attention. We investigate at that point. We just don't have the manpower to be proactive in the manner in which it seems you'd like us to be.

Of course, I'm always willing to entertain ideas or suggestions for improvement.

My comment a few days ago, pertaining to the Bartertown Watch, was a message that I should have more clear in sending: Spend more time catching the bad guys, and less time telling folks they have posted in the wrong place (my general feeling about "law enforcement" in the first place).

That statement, while a wildly popular criticism of law enforcement, is flawed. How can you spend more time catching the bad guys when you have the 'good guys' running around breaking other rules?
And had the 9 out of 10 posters who did not read the rules and ASK the ADMIN first rather than posting false/incorrect BTR's then we as the Admin could have spent the time dealing with those rule infractions researching and dealing with the individual they were writing about in the first place! So really then, is it our fault?
Usually when one blames the admin/law enforcement (per your post) they are doing so because they themselves have been caught breaking some rule and received a consequence as a result. (Not saying that happened with you at all, just taking your example further) When this happens it's called 'deflection'. Generally when one uses this criticism they are doing to to justifiy minor infractions they've been called out on or ticketed for. Most common use of this statement in law enforcement, speeders. Example, "Why are you harrassing me for going 5 miles over the speed limit while there are murders running around you should be catching". BCI was 'deflecting' his wrong doing by trying focus on who he thought "we the admin" SHOULD be going after, rather than his infractions. He spent more effort arguing what Lin and Eric were doing wrong than he did actually defending himself. That's also called the "you" game. When confronted by another, instead of listening to that person one tends to start saying "well YOU did this" or "YOU didn't do that" as some sort of justification (or deflection) that somehow what the other person did is far worse, or the cause of, what they are being accused of. Regardlessof the why it's still all deflection and flawed at it's basic root because one who does this is betraying themselves at that smallest level. By betraying yourself I mean betraying what you KNOW is the right thing. In the speeder example the speeder "betrayed" themselves by accusing the ticketer of nit picking the speeder instead of going after someone far more important. They did this, rather than, admitting to what they KNOW is right and saying "yes I was speeding, I deserve the ticket".

I believe that scammers have no place here, When I hear a report of a possible scam, I find it wise to investigate further.

As do we. What baffles me is how it is believed that because we enforce ALL rules that we are somehow NOT investigating these issues? Do the users of this site have some sort of future sight or clairvoyance that allows them to read the minds of the admins to see what we are and are not working on? Just because we don't go jumping around the forums screaming "scammer here scammer here" doesn't mean we haven't investigated and removed the problem from the site. MUCH MUCH MUCH happens behind the scenes. Lin and I speak on the phone almost daily about issues that have come up, and as I've stated in other posts, we work with other sites as well. I know that Lin and I BOTH have worked with legal departments from two of the BIGGEST manufacturers of the games on this site on several occasions regarding issues that have come up that NEVER made it public because we took care of the problem before it happened.

So it should be known that maybe because you don't see something means that there's a reason it's not there other than we are ignoring it to get the next double poster.

Sometimes I find nothing,

Which is EXACTLY why we have these rules in place. Sometimes there really is NOTHING, but if something were posted PUBLICALLY the damage might've already been done.

Really, if you find yourself saying "you should be going after the bad guys rather than the guys who post in the wrong place" then there is an underlying issue that has less to do with who you are speaking about, but more with the person making the statement. Again this is NOT directed at anyone in general.

I sometimes wonder what people expect us to do, really. Catching the bad guys.

Largely, it seems all we can do is look for patterns after the fact and try and prevent it from happening again.

There isn't much preemptively we can do about 'bad guys' that we're not already doing.

Here i'll make it easy for you to catch the bad guys...


ANOUNCEMENT... ATTENTION ALL THE BAD GUYS OUT THERE


Please for the good of the comunity... Note in your signature line.. the following...

I am Evil
My intentions are to rip you off
Please do not trade with me if you are going to bitch later about being ripped off...

You have been warned.

Any bad guy caught without this in their signature line will be banned and then promptly beaten with a wet noodle...

THAT IS ALL... THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME...

their, that should fix all the issues with catching bad guys... now if we could only figure out a way to stop all those Alien Ghosts that inhabit us... that way Tom Cruise could stop jumping on couches..

ohhh and if i stepped on any toes.. please read my sig.

DarkSoul wrote:ohhh and if i stepped on any toes.. please read my sig.
_________________
Regards,
Thomas Sexton

-- My Soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.

I am Evil
My intentions are to rip you off
Please do not trade with me if you are going to bitch later about being ripped off...

You have been warned.

Look! Admin!
He admits he's here to rip people off.

I told you a LONG time ago that he was suspicious. Probably lefft all those references for himself to lure us into trusting him.
NOBODY gets more than 150 ref's without padding them! I mean, seriously! Come on!

Can we finally get this jerk banned and make BTown a safe place to raise our kids once again?

Wait. Edit...
... Make that "more than 202 ref's"

Eric

just look at my pic... see I'm EVIL.. EVIL I tell you!

Okay... back on topic (wanted to leave the joke post as a joke post & put a REAL one in separately)...

After reading Lin's post and seeing Stephen's repsonses, I am somewhat taken aback, especially considering the appeal I made on his behalf.

I admit I was shocked, too.
This is NOT an attack on S.K. I'm WAY over any grudges I felt...
I expected that any conversations he had with Lin would be filled with the sound of superiority and/or disdain. Honestly, though, I expected to see some defense there, though.
It almost seemed as if there was an attempt at misdirection there or something.

Since that time, I have come to know MM a little better, and I do realize that BCI is, as I told MM on the day BCI was banished, callous in his dealings with people who don't think the way he does.

I think we agreed on that point quite easily.
I never had issues with him as a trader (as I said, we traded, ourselves, during a time that I thought was an attempt to patch things up). I think that mannerism/feeling, eventually, might have been his undoing. People who act that way towards people who think differently than them tend to do it for one of a few different reasons. The most common two that come to mind are insecurity and intolerance. Now, I'm not saying S.K. is guilty of EITHER of those feelings... but *I think* his inability to have a disagreement without turning it into an argument, and subsequent desire to *win* that argument were what caused the final "blow" to fall. Honestly, I can't think of any other reasonable explanation for him to do what he did... and I will not believe the "trying to get your attention to get the problem fixed" reason, either.

In the "battles" between BCI and MM, I still believe that both were at fault.

I think we agreed on that, as well.

I cannot condone, however, the rules violations commited by Mr. Kolostyak. I don't consider the Rule 6 violations quite as severe, since the definition of "politeness" is relative. The Violations of the Dual Account rule, and the Self Posting Rule are what has done him in.

I agree, mostly.
I'm 100% in agreement with your P.o.V. on Rule #6. We break Rule #6 daily... even the Mods/Admin are guilty of it on occasion. IMO, it seems that it's there, mostly, so that it can be used as a reminder when things get too out of hand (as they did with BCI-Ching & myself). You know? A few days of arguing, followed up with a reminder from an Admin "Hey, guys! Don't forget rule #6! Calm it down a few notches or take it to PM's!"

I also don't have problems with the dual account OR self post.... Don't jump on me, everyone. I'll explain.
IIRC, his reason for dual accounts was genuine and not deceptive. It wouldn't be the first time someone changed their account because they (a) needed to or (b) wanted to. The self posting seemed relatively innocent, as well "Hey. I used to be this guy. My account got messed up. Look there for the rest of my ref's" (Not a direct quote, obviously).

I have no problem with that. There have been enough problems in the past that -no insult intended- the Admin staff hasn't been able to address as swiftly as SHOULD be done (for darned good reasons, too!), so the trader puts in his own "fix" until the Admin staff gets it fixed properly. He (S.K.) put in a temp fix that went longer than it probably should have.
Again. I'm okay with it. IIRC, he didn't have many ref's on the I-Ching account. At lower levels, every ref is precious.

My only point of contention was the decision to make it look as if a 3rd party was supporting him in a debate/disagreement that really COULD have had a valuable outcome for the people interested in the thread. Two intelligent people with different thoughts on something CAN find a center ground that is better than either point was, individually. It just seems to me that he wanted to "win" and not debate.

My comment a few days ago, pertaining to the Bartertown Watch, was a message that I should have more clear in sending: Spend more time catching the bad guys, and less time telling folks they have posted in the wrong place (my general feeling about "law enforcement" in the first place). My apologies to those who may be offended by my frankness. I believe that scammers have no place here, When I hear a report of a possible scam, I find it wise to investigate further. Sometimes I find nothing, but sometimes, people are correct in their reports.

Well, I'm obviously not one of those involved. If I was, however, your apology would be unnecessary. That comment didn't seem to be SAID in such a way as to be offensive.

If you reference the Watch, Mods & Admins as "law enforcement," then maybe this thought will hit home.

In real life, it isn't the job of Law Enforcement (police) to catch the guilty.

It's their job to protect the innocent. One way they do that is by catching the guilty and/or stopping them before they can commit their crime... but, really, it's just an extension of protecting the innocent.

BY "calling out" someone who posts an accusation about someone inappropriately, they are protecting the innocent. Being (US) Americans, we live by the "Innocent until proven guilty" system of law. That will, naturally, extend to encompass our feelings on matters here. So, that being the case, EldarFreak WAS innocent (until proven guilty). in the end, he WAS proven guilty and punished for it.

Adapt that to real world...
If you happen to see someone walking down the street who is on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list, and sneak up behind him & bash him in the head with a bat, then call the police & wait there until they arrive, the "Most Wanted" guy's gonna get sent to jail (after he gets out of the Hospital). So are you. In apprehending him in a violent & vigilante way, you broke the law & will suffer the consequences... that's not even covering the "What if you had the wrong guy" scenario.

That's what happened here, but the "Judge" went easy on him because he was performing a service to the community while making that mistake.

Well, there's my wordy two cents.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote: It almost seemed as if there was an attempt at misdirection there or something.

From my perspective, there was. Arguments - or debate positions, if you will - have a certain logical construction. There are quite a few of them, actually, but they fall into certain broad categories. Misdirection and False Choices are two of the most commonly used. I had a link...ah yes. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
This site does a GREAT job explaining the various types of logical fallacies used, much better than I could.

In any event, yes there was misdirection. No, I did not allow him to divert me with insults, false kindness, irrelevant questions, going over my head to Adam, or threatening innuendo.

Suffice it to say, Bartertown has an appeals process. It's clearly laid out. For whatever reason(s), BCI chose not to follow that process and let his temper get the better of him.

My personal contention with the two accounts was that the ITL feedback on them overlapped, which to me looked like he was using both to make trades for awhile at the same time.

NuWishA wrote:My personal contention with the two accounts was that the ITL feedback on them overlapped, which to me looked like he was using both to make trades for awhile at the same time.

I just glossed over that part, myself, as it's possible that wasn't his fault.

If he happened to be using a different email address for that trade, for whatever reason (myself, I have 5 different email addresses, depending on what I'm doing), and the person filled out the form using the email & personal info, rather than putting in the trader name, the system would've put it with the name that the email was registered with.

(What would it have done it if no email address was used? Maybe that happened?)

Now, I don't recall what service he had his email addresses with, but there are numerous valid reasons why it might have happened. Heck! Three of my email addresses are AOL, but I've had times (plural) when ONE didn't work, but the other 2 did. At one point it was like that for 2 or 3 DAYS,..

Anyway, I don't know WHY it happened like that, but it was something I just gave him the benefit of the doubt on.
I mean, like I said, THAT could've potentially not been his fault or purposefully done.
The "third person" support thing, however... that was blatant.
That's the difference, IMO.

Eric

Let's talk about BCI.

Karma will eventually come back around...and it's a B.

I am Evil
My intentions are to rip you off
Please do not trade with me if you are going to bitch later about being ripped off...

While the post, in it's entirety, was hillarious, I have to tell you that actually changing your sig to this, while discussing a possible trade, made me actually read through your ITL even though it's 500+

Quote:
Let's talk about BCI.



Karma will eventually come back around...and it's a B.

Color me confused but is this supposed to be bad or good karma? Not sure where you are going with that, care to clarify?

AdamSouza wrote:

I am Evil
My intentions are to rip you off
Please do not trade with me if you are going to bitch later about being ripped off...

While the post, in it's entirety, was hillarious, I have to tell you that actually changing your sig to this, while discussing a possible trade, made me actually read through your ITL even though it's 500+

I just KNEW that sig line was gonna jump up to bite him in the booty at some point. LOL
It happened FASTER than I thought, but I was certain it would!

Morlock-Bloodletter wrote:

Quote:
Let's talk about BCI.



Karma will eventually come back around...and it's a B.

Color me confused but is this supposed to be bad or good karma? Not sure where you are going with that, care to clarify?

I believe he means it to be bad karma, due to the "it's a B..." in the post.
"B" being the most common place where people stop when they don't want to post the whole word "B!tch."
As in:
"Karma's a B!tch."

Eric