Bitcoin Forum

Crumbs - which I have absolutely no connection to, not even a single PM - have been trolling hashfast threads quite steadily.
Intention was pure, intuition was right on spot, presentation was alternatively hillarious (come on, the ponys!) and very conspirationnist.
But overall, he was right, tried to warn people in his own way.
If he's been banned, I really am sad.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=127503

He might have kept more people away from this scam, would he have not been shut down.
I dislike censorship just a tad less than scammership.

But I hate both.

Crumbs was banned for his "activities" in the Activemining thread. He wasn't alone, although, but I believe he is the only one to get a permanent ban, as he had been temporarily banned before.

Thanks for the answer, and I mean it.
But how come some preventive, positive - although "misprestended" (raw translation from french, not sure it is understandable.... maybe "ill-served"? "hateful"? - action can get you a perm-ban when some dubious alts only get a temp one?
Any way you could reconsider crumbs, please?

Cause if hateful, that was rightful. ;)

It wasn't his preventive, positive posts that got him banned. I watched crumbs very closely, and agree he brought up good points from time to time, but the majority of his posts were incredibly disruptive. While some dubious alts do indeed only get a temp ban, so did Crumbs. This was the second time that he was banned, that I know of anyway, there could have been other bans.

Ok, I understand you had some good reasons to perm-ban him.

Now, if I was to ask for a thread asking for operators to post some evidences (and quotes of private discussions) before permanently banning someone, so you can just have a peaceful feedback, would that be too much, too?

I'd just like to be able to check the trial report when I realize someone's been banned for ever.

He was given consideration many times, I even took the time to give him yet another warning instead of banning him before actually banning him when he continued. How many warnings should one get before banning? 8? 9? 20? How much time do we need to waste before it's clear that it's a waste of time?

I liked crumbs, he brought up good points often, but he couldn't help but troll and disrupt conversations at the same time. It's too bad really. 

As for this, while I can appreciate you wanting to see more transparency, fact of the matter is you won't have access to the information you need to make an informed decision, so it would be a waste of everyone's time. You likely won't be able to see what they were banned for, as it's been deleted. Even if you did see it you would be missing the context, or it isn't even anything specific, more of a straw that broke the camel's back situation, or it's from something in pms, etc. You would also be missing information about previous warnings, bans, previously deleted posts (which count as a warning in some cases).

Also there's the privacy issue, if Salty gets banned for repeatedly posting granny porn, is that really any of your business? Or is it between us and them?

My previous post was not that clear.
What would be great when someone is perma-banned, is that you make the mod thread where I suppose you discussed about this, public.

And about Salty, well, I do think it's also my business (I used his escrow services and would like to know I dealt with such a character ;D).

As a fellow businessman, I must voice my concern with your reckless and haphazard stewardship of my forum.

Banning immature, disruptive scum, though well-intentioned, has proved itself worse than ineffective.  For each banned account, hundreds of throwaway accounts - each one buthurt - spring up like mushrooms to sperge all over this august establishment.  My colleague confided the filthy hooligans enjoy being banned >:(

I sympathise with your motives, and concur that this forum needs to be made hospitable for budding entrepreneurs.  My clients must feel protected to best ply their trade.  They must be made safe to feast on their prey without undue interference.  It is your methods, Sir, that i find fault with.

Sincerely Yours,
~Account Management Team.

We do discuss it, however in private, as it is a confidential process. We don't just spin a wheel, and whoever an arrow on it points to is who we ban. Moderators from different boards put together evidence supporting their reasoning for bans. Those include threads/comments the accused have made, as well as private reports from individuals. I don't think there is a single benefit to having that information public. The person who reports the accused in the first place wouldn't be safe, evidence gathered could be tampered with as soon as the person finds out what evidence is being used against them, and most of all, why does the public need to know? Having transparency in the forum's funds is one thing, so people know that money they have donated hasn't been spent on hookers and blow by Theymos. The entire business is between who is being banned, and those making the decision. That comes in the form of private warnings and ban appeals.


Baaadbearrrr, we agreed to keep that a secret  :'(

*Edit* However I think it would be neat if it said, "Banned" on someone's account profile if they were banned.

How about the following ones:
- It would show that there is a real "trial" before a perma-ban
- It would let people get a glimpse at the work you actually do (I've been a mod too, and know this is a lot of work, but some people don't).
- It would help making the "mods are nazis" people shut up.
- It would help us understanding the reasons that led to that ban(*)

Of course, private complains appearing in the thread should be anonymized first.

(*)I, for one, really appreciated crumbs posts, but I mostly read them on the hashfast related threads. I beleive you when you say he was too disruptive on other threads, but I had to ask to understand, as I didn't really have time to parse his post history (and trolling ones would have been already deleted, as you pointed)

Anyway, cheers for you answers, I understand this is not going to happen and won't up this post anymore.

BTW, crumbs' thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297530.msg4400973#msg4400973) is poppin', since the official thread is being astroturfed moderated so nicely.  HashFast are choirboys compared to that fiasco.
Active Mining investors fleeced of millions by an illiterate alcoholic.
This miracle of Bitcoin Finance wouldn't be possible without your help.

Same here

I could see that being abused for some stupid reasons.

People could think its cool to have a banned account, or a large number of them.

Well, quite honestly, the mods aren't trying to gain the approval of the users, I'd say the fact that out of 200,000 accounts, there are only a handful of, "OMG MY ACCOUNT WAS BANNED WRONGFULLY" threads is actually rather impressive. As far as reasons for bans, more often than not, a user knows what they are getting banned for. We might not take the time to explain it to a 8 hour old account that has spammed up 50 posts, or to someone who is posting malware, but besides that, there is very infrequently a case where people are just banned.

I say it whenever it comes up, getting banned here is actually quite an acomplishment. You can insult the forum owner and not get banned, you can use whatever language you want (within reason). How many other forums can say the same? Really, the only ways you can get banned are, 1) Malware, self explanatory. 2) Excessive spamming, if you are a new account that has done nothing but spammed, you are at higher risk, however if you have been around and you post off topic, or go on a bender, you will be warned, those posts removed, and you are free to go on your way. 3) "Trolling" again, thats another one with a really high threshold. Like crumbs for example, he was warned multiple times and given temporary bans, because he did have good information throughout his posts so he was cut some slack.

Besides very very serious behavior that is undeniably stupid, and if you don't understand why you are getting banned for it, you have no reason having access to plastic bags let alone the internet; the forums are pretty tolerant of reasonable behavior or mistakes that will eventually get your account banned if you ignore a handful of warnings.

Considering that one needs to proxy/Tor, create a new account, and wait 4 hours to make a pointless thread guaranteed to do zero good, i'd say you're easiloy impressed.

And then those accounts that are doing zero good get banned, which proves my point.

If only you actually banned all of his Alts -
NickDanger
bromide
Cropcircle
DoloresMaze
webgypsy
Bambifan101
Thumper650
Dolor
DoloresHazed
AccountManagement
AccountMarketing
AccountsUnlimited
Bambilion
Truffix
450Desmo

Most of these are quite obvious, some you have to look at him defending himself in meta threads with newbie accounts.

He will likely just make some new ones but at least he has to work a little bit harder :)

See the problem is, in the active mining thread, people use the term "crumbs" as an insult in an attempt to discredit what someone is saying. I can safely say that 80% of those names you listed are not him.

You mean you can safely say that 80% of those names are hidden behind a VPN/Proxy.

No, I can safely say 80% of those accounts are not crumbs, and the other 20% could be safely hidden behind a VPN/Proxy. I'm not actually as stupid as I look, its not often that people change what languages they speak fluently, nor their speech patterns in english.

Ok I'll humor you,

These new accounts pop up and go directly for the ActM Thread and literally post the same pictures and use very similar words as crumbs that isn't enough?

I don't believe anyone is saying that you are stupid but I do believe that some things that are obvious are being overlooked.


Edit: Regardless if it is crumbs or not, I was under the impression that this type of behavior is why he was banned so I can't imagine why you would let these unique individuals to go and have their second/third/fourth posts repeat his process and not get a similar outcome.

There are a multitude of different parties that have been banned in the ActM thread, Crumbs is not the only one. It could be any of them, or it could be a totally unrelated person. Crumbs to my knowledge does not speak the languages that some of those people you listed did, and why would he make 15 new accounts? A few of those people on your list I have known for a while, so I'm also reasonably sure they are not crumbs as well. There are a few people on your list that I have no idea about, however this isn't a wild goose chase. If it is crumbs, he will make a mistake and will be banned then. I'm not going to spend hours per day running around in a circle investigating every person that posts in that thread. If I see similar trends between an account and crumbs, I investigate further.

I have seen the posts that those people are making, and that people are reporting. More than a handful are well thought out and reasonable, and then people start calling them "crumbs" to discredit their ideas. I'm not going to play into the debate about Activemining because I have no stake in it, nor any opinion on the matter. I'm not going to humor the opposition nor the pro Activemining people by taking out those that are against it. I honestly don't care if people want to insult Activemining, call it a scam, or whatever. As long as they can post in a way that can be responded to (IE used as conversation) I don't care. People can defend their own stances. I'm not here to ban the "trolls" in the activemining thread, because those that are being called that and the ones calling them that in the first place are pretty much a wash on that account. If special exceptions weren't made for that thread, nearly every single person there would be sacked by now, because its abhorrent how people act there. But, it is a self moderated thread, so Ken is free to do what he wishes, and people have serious financial stakes in the matter, so it is going to inspire more emotional posting than other topics.

Fair enough,

Although it is confusing that you have known a few of these people for a while considering all of them have made their accounts within the past month (most closer to the days following crumbs ban).

I don't believe anyone is asking you to go on a wild goose chase, but when you have the following posts it should make it obvious.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4347959#msg4347959
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4277189#msg4277189
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4415914#msg4415914

As far as the other accounts, I guess as long as they stop using the images they are alright hmm.

Edit: Also I know that some of the accounts on that list are already banned.

ACTM thread is a mess still.  I am willing to bet that it is the most troublesome thread out of this whole forum.

Quite funny 1 person keeps all the mods so busy

A few people on that list I know are alts of other people, and to me the posts just look like they are frustrated with who I will explain a bit further down in my post. There are two sides in the activemining thread. The naysayers and the supporters. The naysayers have two sects, the reasonable ones that aire their concerns, and the ones that just want to be annoying. The supporters have two sects as well. The ones that reply to the reasonable naysayer's concerns, and the annoying ones that just call everyone that has a question or concern crumbs. When the annoying naysayers and the annoying supporters converse, it ends up in pages of spam which results in all parties involved getting punished. (Crumbs, StuartUK, etc)

Now there are also the other combinations that are bad, which involves any reasonable side and an annoying opposition which results in slightly fewer pages of spam, but its still bad. In those cases, the offenders alone are punish, and the reasonable and now frustrated party is left alone. As of late, it is getting worse to the point where it is either leave the thread to its own devices, or get rid of everyone involved. To get rid of everyone involved would be unfair, as many people in that thread only post poorly there and no where else, triggered by the annoying ones of either side. To get rid of no one means nothing changes, and to only target the "trolls" means to get rid of the "trolls" and those calling them "trolls" is essentially the first senario of getting rid of everyone.

I understand,

For the record I was also extremely happy with the bans on both sides including StuartUK/Zumzero. It looks as if they have calmed down mostly.

Hey Salty,

It's time to come to terms that some of these troll accounts need to be banned. For reference please see here

mainline - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=209718;sa=showPosts
truffix - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=209673;sa=showPosts
EduardoDeCastro - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=228109;sa=showPosts


Regardless of who you know or believe these individuals to be, they are constantly spamming threads even after they are deleted by self moderation. Let me know what you think.

Here's a few more you can add to the list.

NotOP - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=251451;sa=showPosts
Fawn - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=227959;sa=showPosts
Sporket - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=209655;sa=showPosts

You might have to use your Mod access to see the over 100 deleted posts from them spamming moderated threads.

I'm sure nothing will be done.

Each of these accounts literally posts the same thing one after another. Exactly the same thing, at the same time, just different accounts.

Either a "ban from thread" option or ban these guys. They are making the forum unusable.

Doesn't matter, they can just make a new account and be back to posting in that thread in less than a minute.

Yet you (or one of the other mods) banned an account that tried to troll their thread using the same tactics? Double standards.

Actually they only did 6 posts (Contrary to the Hundreds that these guys are doing to warrant that ban.

And no, the account that did that did not belong to me nor do I condone such actions as everyone involved in doing that should be banned.

I've also banned a dozen of crumbs accounts at least, but think what you want. I don't know what account/thread you're referring to.

That's why I edited it to say that "One of the mods" is not banning these accounts. Not specifically you, sorry if it came off that way. I'll try to make it more clear.