creditwala
BANNED - Failed to resolve a dispute
- Dec 29, 2024
- 122
- 57
I’m posting this to raise a concern regarding a warning I received under Rule 3.5 that I strongly believe was issued in error.
I replied to a WTB thread from December 2024 where someone was looking for accounts. That thread came up in my feed, and I had exactly what the OP requested, so I made a single, relevant comment offering my service.
Shortly after, I received a warning for violating Rule 3.5, which, as per the official terms, refers to post count inflation — things like posting “thanks,” low-effort replies, or spamming threads to inflate stats.
When I asked for proof that I violated this rule, support changed the reason entirely and said the warning was actually for reviving a 6-month-old WTB thread, and that such bumps are "spammy."
I went back and re-read Rule 3.5 in full. Nowhere does it say that replying to an old WTB thread is a violation. If this is truly considered spam, it should be written clearly in the rules — not enforced as an unwritten policy.
did you ever get this type of warning? first they say its direct rule 3.5 warning and than they say You bump a 6month old WTB thread(OPEN Thread). if there is a time limit to WTB thread than close all the old thread so no user can face this issue, also update rule 3.5 if you want to enforce this warning.
Here’s what happened:
I replied to a WTB thread from December 2024 where someone was looking for accounts. That thread came up in my feed, and I had exactly what the OP requested, so I made a single, relevant comment offering my service.
Shortly after, I received a warning for violating Rule 3.5, which, as per the official terms, refers to post count inflation — things like posting “thanks,” low-effort replies, or spamming threads to inflate stats.
When I asked for proof that I violated this rule, support changed the reason entirely and said the warning was actually for reviving a 6-month-old WTB thread, and that such bumps are "spammy."
Here’s the issue:
I went back and re-read Rule 3.5 in full. Nowhere does it say that replying to an old WTB thread is a violation. If this is truly considered spam, it should be written clearly in the rules — not enforced as an unwritten policy.
did you ever get this type of warning? first they say its direct rule 3.5 warning and than they say You bump a 6month old WTB thread(OPEN Thread). if there is a time limit to WTB thread than close all the old thread so no user can face this issue, also update rule 3.5 if you want to enforce this warning.