Suggestion: Community Reps

[Sentient]

We should require them to at least reveal in their profile what tracker they're from. What's the point of having them if people still don't know who to contact and have to spam the forum when they need help?

What do you guys think?

[Barbarossa]

I don't see the point of them. :dabs:

They're not even middlemen, ffs :frusty:

[Sentient]

I don't see the point of them. :dabs:

They're not even middlemen, ffs :frusty:

Well I see the point of them, to bring the lurking admins out of the shadows, so that while they're spying on us, they can be of some help as well. But it's a free ride if they still hide the site they're from.

[Chewie]

I don't see the point of them. :dabs:

They're not even middlemen, ffs :frusty:

Well I see the point of them, to bring the lurking admins out of the shadows, so that while they're spying on us, they can be of some help as well. But it's a free ride if they still hide the site they're from.The reason they're here has been done to death so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again.

We could force them to display their sites but we're not nazis.

What difference does it make, anyhow? Is it so you know which sites to flaunt the rules of?

[Mr JP Fugley]

They can't reveal where they are from if the site they represent does not want invite sharing to go on.

Me, I'm not fussed. It's just a usernametypething from what I can see. Especially if no-one knows what site they "represent".

It's a bit "meh" actually. However if it keeps chaps happy, then pas de problem, Shirley.

[Sentient]

[quote=Hedonist7;1795240]

What difference does it make, anyhow? Is it so you know which sites to flaunt the rules of?

Pretty much. Wherever could I have gotten the idea that this was a site where tracker rules were flaunted?

I thought that by requesting they reveal their sites in exchange for being granted the privilege of being a community rep here, it might further your stated goal that they are here "not to create a battle zone but to assist in joining communities."

[manker]

What difference does it make, anyhow? Is it so you know which sites to flaunt the rules of?

Pretty much. Wherever could I have gotten the idea that this was a site where tracker rules were flaunted?
:lol: :lol:

This Hedonist chap makes an excellent point in an amusing manner. He gets my vote.

If a large part of the raison d'etre of the community reps on this site is to stop people trading their invites and to catch scammers, then surely their site should be displayed somewhere to deter both of these activities.

If the site isn't displayed then they're only enforcing their rules after they've been broken - if their site is clearly displayed then they're deterring people from breaking the rules and can still enforce them if they get broken.

Surely the latter is more transparent and palatable - to all concerned parties but especially to the hoi polloi.

[Chewie]

What difference does it make, anyhow? Is it so you know which sites to flaunt the rules of?
Pretty much. Wherever could I have gotten the idea that this was a site where tracker rules were flaunted?

I thought that by requesting they reveal their sites in exchange for being granted the privilege of being a community rep here, it might further your stated goal that they are here "not to create a battle zone but to assist in joining communities."
Section Guidelines * READ FIRST * Updated 2/15 (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/p-section-guidelines-read-first-updated-215-post1402387/postcount1)

Respect Communities Your A Member Of...
...Read the rules of the sites your a member at and if you choose
to break them dont complain if action is taken against you.Even with RealitY's spelling (:P) it is clear.
We tell members to respect the rules of BT sites. Where did you get the impression that FST's Invite section was an anything goes area?






Pretty much. Wherever could I have gotten the idea that this was a site where tracker rules were flaunted?
:lol: :lol:

This Hedonist chap makes an excellent point in an amusing manner. He gets my vote.

If a large part of the raison d'etre of the community reps on this site is to stop people trading their invites and to catch scammers, then surely their site should be displayed somewhere to deter both of these activities.

If the site isn't displayed then they're only enforcing their rules after they've been broken - if their site is clearly displayed then they're deterring people from breaking the rules and can still enforce them if they get broken.

Surely the latter is more transparent and palatable - to all concerned parties but especially to the hoi polloi.I do see this side of the argument and I've considered it but I feel it may have a negative impact on what we're trying to accomplish in the BT community. We're trying to show the community that FST members can be trusted; that we're doing what we can to weed out the undesirables from our membership (hello, bor!).
Yes it's more transparent but I think the onus should be on the member to respect the rules of all sites. It would be hypocritical to expect members to respect our rules while not caring a jot whether they do those of other sites. I know FST is all about sharing (outside the OT section, of course) but respect is a principal that I think we should encourage.

If we forced CRs to display their site it's entirely possible that some may prefer to 'go undercover'.
It's fair to say that BT sites do have staff lurking FST. I think we're the only site that acknowledges their presence and offers them something in return for their being open and helpful.

CRs aren't here to snitch on invite traders and the above-linked post does state that we won't tolerate being used for a duck-shoot. Most (probably all) CRs aren't concerned with invite trading anyway, being more concerned with account trading - again, something FST doesn't condone.
We offer site name and url filtering in return for their help in nailing cheaters and scammers. Staff at BT sites talk to each other and trade information; by informing CRs of scammers and cheaters that we have uncovered, we can be quite sure that they will have their access at many BT sites curtailed. This won't replace a lost account on a premium tracker but I believe it gives a nice warm feeling for the member that lost out.

[peat moss]

You took the time to explain your position Chewie, thats all one can ask . As I said I'm kinda sitting on the fence which is not like me , I'm more share the wealth or knowledge for free ,no sign ups required . Hey it don't work that way in life sadly .


People will look for short cuts and rip people off because they can , if it was just Manker and JP trading invites we would n't be having this discussion .

Sorry I meant people like Manker and JP .

[manker]

Pretty much. Wherever could I have gotten the idea that this was a site where tracker rules were flaunted?

I thought that by requesting they reveal their sites in exchange for being granted the privilege of being a community rep here, it might further your stated goal that they are here "not to create a battle zone but to assist in joining communities."
Section Guidelines * READ FIRST * Updated 2/15 (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/p-section-guidelines-read-first-updated-215-post1402387/postcount1)

Respect Communities Your A Member Of...
...Read the rules of the sites your a member at and if you choose
to break them dont complain if action is taken against you.Even with RealitY's spelling (:P) it is clear.
We tell members to respect the rules of BT sites. Where did you get the impression that FST's Invite section was an anything goes area?






Pretty much. Wherever could I have gotten the idea that this was a site where tracker rules were flaunted?
:lol: :lol:

This Hedonist chap makes an excellent point in an amusing manner. He gets my vote.

If a large part of the raison d'etre of the community reps on this site is to stop people trading their invites and to catch scammers, then surely their site should be displayed somewhere to deter both of these activities.

If the site isn't displayed then they're only enforcing their rules after they've been broken - if their site is clearly displayed then they're deterring people from breaking the rules and can still enforce them if they get broken.

Surely the latter is more transparent and palatable - to all concerned parties but especially to the hoi polloi.I do see this side of the argument and I've considered it but I feel it may have a negative impact on what we're trying to accomplish in the BT community. We're trying to show the community that FST members can be trusted; that we're doing what we can to weed out the undesirables from our membership (hello, bor!).
Yes it's more transparent but I think the onus should be on the member to respect the rules of all sites. It would be hypocritical to expect members to respect our rules while not caring a jot whether they do those of other sites. I know FST is all about sharing (outside the OT section, of course) but respect is a principal that I think we should encourage.

If we forced CRs to display their site it's entirely possible that some may prefer to 'go undercover'.
It's fair to say that BT sites do have staff lurking FST. I think we're the only site that acknowledges their presence and offers them something in return for their being open and helpful.

CRs aren't here to snitch on invite traders and the above-linked post does state that we won't tolerate being used for a duck-shoot. Most (probably all) CRs aren't concerned with invite trading anyway, being more concerned with account trading - again, something FST doesn't condone.
We offer site name and url filtering in return for their help in nailing cheaters and scammers. Staff at BT sites talk to each other and trade information; by informing CRs of scammers and cheaters that we have uncovered, we can be quite sure that they will have their access at many BT sites curtailed. This won't replace a lost account on a premium tracker but I believe it gives a nice warm feeling for the member that lost out.
Thanks for that, Chewie. I appreciate the time you've taken to write all that stuff.

While I don't entirely agree with the stance on the Community Reps - I still feel that if they want their blue stars, then they should have to display their site. If they go 'underground' 'cos they didn't want to put it in their profile, it would hardly be a change from what they're doing at present.

I do understand FST's stance a bit better now.

[Sentient]

Yep, it's a good point; some of the community reps are invaluable, and it'd be sad to drive them away with restrictions before they even join. Most eventually reveal their affiliation, you just have to read their posts closely.