> Any other ideas? 
Well, I wouldnât be handing him any bank account numbersâŚor the
keys to the family car for that matter. Kind of like the FBI witness
protection program, or better yet a prisoner work program: give him a new identity and make sure he stays in a little cage where we can be sure he
doesnât do any damage out on the street. In return for protecting him
from the other thugs he must perform menial tasks like trading monopoly
money for a negative rate of return and do Matthews laundry.
Yes. I like that: the prisoner work program will give him a preview of
whatâs to come if he doesnât wise up. Part of the C2 youth correctional program and continuing education for the criminally insane.
Iâm a terrible driver anyway, and I donât do laundry
"Maybe you should hire him as a trouble shooter"
This seems unnecessary. We have reported enough things already that donât seem to have been fixed. The holes are limited but glaring. At the risk of repeating myself:
1) Prevent forum posting by anyone who has not provided financial information. That strongly prevents people using fake IDs from pumping their systems, making it look like they have allies, trashing others, posting spam/marketing messages, etc⌠Anomymous posters will likely be 80% of the fraudulent or unsubstantiated content.
2) Only allow paid subscribers to leave system reviews (not âfree trialâ folks). And anyone who reverses the charge on their credit card gets their review pulled.
3) Only allow paid subscribers or paid system providers to leave notes via the âMy Analystâ page feature. Fake IDs were used to pump up systems. They can also be used to trash others. Again, anomymous posters will likely be 80% of the fraudulent or unsubstantiated content.
4) I think the running up the views has been fixed, but I have no way to check.
5) Enforce fraudulent practice policy. No second chances. No exceptions. They get caught cheating, their system is pulled forever & money is gone. They are never again allowed to subscribe or put out any C2 system (can be checked by financial info). It is like released felons. They tend to commit a lot of the future crimes. Whose side is C2 on?
6) Strongly limit the number of free systems. Two per person. AND, free systems stay on your record for 6 months (to discourage the 15-20 test systems policy). No free system without leaving your financial information.
7) No non-test system may use the word âtestâ in its name. One warning. If it happens again, system is pulled.
8) A number of people complained that tolerating this behavior was calling into question the seriousness that C2 takes how the honest people work. Most of these complaints (I counted at least 5 diff people) were never addressed publicly by MK. Is this a business service or a hobby??? I am still on the fence about this one. Who counts more, the loyal C2 customers or those who drag it through the mud? From what I have seen, it was not the customers. This behavior would never be tolerated by most businesses, and they would NEVER gloss over the complaints.
Can anyone add to this list? I am sure I am forgetting a couple.
Fix these first!!!
Ross: I welcome your opinions, but that doesnât mean I have to agree with you.
Re: your points 1-3: I donât agree with your opinion. My current policy stands.
Your point 4: has been fixed, weeks ago.
Your point 5: Iâm in charge; and Iâll make decisions that are in the best interest of C2. If someoneâs a skunk, Iâll get rid of them. If they can be redeemed, Iâll work on them. I have no interest in writing a hard-and-fast policy. If someone pisses me off, theyâre gone.
Your point 6: I have modified the site so that a paid-systems-to-free-systems ratio is enforced. You canât create infinite free systems without paying for some.
Your point 7: Thatâs an interesting point I hadnât considered. Let me think about that.
You point 8: I run a company that is more open and transparent than any other business I know about. If there is a problem, it is posted in public, and dealt with publicly. I hide nothing. I âgloss overâ nothing. Like all software companies, I need to prioritize issues and problems. Just because one person thinks something is the Worldâs Most Important Thing doesnât mean that I agree (or that I can address it immediately). I would venture that C2 is more responsive than most software companies in the world. You have an issue; you send me an email. If I agree with your assessment, I make changes ASAP. If not, I add it to a list of tasks that are constantly re-prioritized.
Matthew
"Your point 8: I run a company that is more open and transparent than any other business I know about. If there is a problem, it is posted in public, and dealt with publicly. I hide nothing. I âgloss overâ nothing. Like all software companies, I need to prioritize issues and problems. Just because one person thinks something is the Worldâs Most Important Thing doesnât mean that I agree (or that I can address it immediately). I would venture that C2 is more responsive than most software companies in the world. You have an issue; you send me an email. If I agree with your assessment, I make changes ASAP. If not, I add it to a list of tasks that are constantly re-prioritized. "
The problem is, that some people directly questioned why this was allowed to continue in the public forum, but C2 did not respond. Even stating the C2 position is better than not addressing the question. I could pull the comments, but that would take energy I would rather not.
When people complain that I should ban someone from the site, I can either agree or disagree. In this case, I disagreed. Thereâs not much more I can say. Iâll add for the record that I emailed you privately, and wrote you a rather expansive letter about why I chose not to ban the person from the site. So itâs not as though I ignored you.
But⌠OK. Water under the bridge. Letâs move on.
Matthew
Just for the record, I am happy with how C2 operates and act. Just because someone appointed himself as the resident guru, savior and protector of everyone on here and for some reason thinks he can tell everyone how they should do things, does not mean he speaks for the majority. (Even if it is written in bold).
Best Regards
- Fanus
Iâm happy with it too. No need for nanny-ism.
