Bitcoin Forum

Surely it's high-time for UID "Bitcoin SV" to be nuked.

What do you expect to happen when you create a poll about a sockpuppeting troll? ;D

Nuking is a bit harsh, but removing the ridiculous flag spam would be nice.

I can add further voting options but I feel the five cover the various scenarios available.

---

(and I wasn't paying attention earlier when I created the poll with my mobile alt).

I think I will somehow agree with Suchmoon... removing the flag spam created by the chap and then warn them. But as you know most troll are always stubborn. The chances of them changing to become positive people after getting warned are usually very low. If they continued with the stupid behavior, then a ban would be more than welcome.

You don't feel Nuking one will act as a deterrent to others?

WTF?   :o  :o
Does this Bitcoin SV guy have a life?

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/14/blob1c962da7d955add5.png

Nuke Nuke Nuke!!!!

A question, If an account is nuked, Do the feedback and flags left by the account get wiped out along?

Apparently not.


That is the preferred option.

Even if you ban him why do you want to delete all his posts? (nuke)
Don't you want their to be a record left of how stupid the account was?

It's just a troll..
Is he really that good of a troll? Ya'll can't handle it and need to nuke him?

It looks like the flag system is working perfectly to me.. Not a single one of his flags are supported..
Who does that make look bad? You or him (and from association BSV)?

I'll say it again..

In my opinion, this user is a POE Troll.. As in his actual intent is to do a disservice to BSV (the coin)..


In more layman's terms which I myself would understand better... If you wanted to make BSV and CSW look stupid, and the support thereof, what better way than to pose as a supporter and draw a lot of attention to yourself while acting like a complete imbecile and being as extreme as you can to discredit what you are pretending to support?

I have a hunch this user may in all reality be pro-BTC anti-BSV and is just playing this character to mock BSV and make BSV shills in general look as extreme and gullible as his own character is portraying to be..  


If my hunch is correct, he is very good at it and has most all of you duped..


I voted "No further action required" and to let him go on degrading the reputation of BSV and CSW, as I think he may very well intend..


Ban him for being a troll or whatever though.. No real argument against it from me.. Just say'n..

Each to their own and thanks for participating.  (I had actually considered that until the Flags started fluttering)

I hold no sway on the admin side of things here, but if they want the pulse of the forum regarding this user, then what better way than this poll?  (after all, people have voted, but not actually participated in the discussion). @theymos

Still, there stupidity would not be that public and accessible as it is now. And what about freedom of speech ?

GP was not nuked, right? And I guess that's only one easy example.
What I mean is that some of the toxic users seem to get away no matter how much garbage they produce, no matter what we'd like or vote.

And yes, imho flag and trust abuse (usually for retaliatory reasons) should get the account nuked.

ETFbitcoin & hacker1001101001  make very valid points, but don't forget not every country has a bill of rights or freedoms enshrined in constitutions.  That doesn't mean those countries are any more right or wrong than the ones with charters.

Someone such as LoyceV could possibly address the question of how many thousands of UID's have already been nuked and under what circumstances.

As with korner, Bitcoin SV's Flags are little more than slander and or defamation.  I was under the impression some flags (by others) have been removed in the past, however, a quick glance at the current flag list (http://loyce.club/trust/flags/232.html) seems to indicate that only the first three test flags have been removed.

In the first ten hours the spread of votes is fairly constant (percentage wise) across all bar candidate/topic four on zero votes to warn only.

The main difference between GP and Bitcoin SV is the Bitcoin SV account belongs to a banned troll named korner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5211434.0). He owns all of these accounts, several of which are banned:


Unlike some of his other accounts, he hasn't outright admitted he is Bitcoin SV, and there's no blockchain evidence to link him. Only the fact that all these accounts woke up on the same day to change their password, and his pattern of behavior fits the MO for a korner account (read the linked thread for more details).

I wouldn't mind if he were nuked, but he should definitely be banned for trolling and ban evasion.

I just don't know how to report his comments for ban evasion. They certainly are easier to report for trolling. Perhaps we should go that route.

It is definitely not a nuke. Even game-protect has not been nuked or even permabanned from trolling, trust spams as well as flag spams.

based on my observation, this forum's policy against trolls is neither banning nor nuking them since this is not the only troll that is active on bitcointalk and maybe not even the biggest one! sometimes the posts i report aren't even deleted let alone the entire history of the troll.
the only case that i have seen led to a ban was a severe case of someone spamming nonsense all over the forum specially in speculation board with his price guesses while trolling bitcoin and SegWit.

All right, then there are even more reasons for at least ban.
I still stick to my logic, repeated trust feedback and trust flag abuse should mean nuke. It's, imho, worse than plagiarism, for example.

All governments are wrong..
It just so happens that the US government is less wrong on most points when it comes to the question of individual liberty due to its founding principles, which could definitely still be improved upon atleast in terms of interpretation..

The least amount of intervention on a society by any "authority" the better IMO..

As Kirk said to Spock - "Let's aim for those last two percent" (Corbomite Manoeuvrer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corbomite_Maneuver))

*edit* (eddie13 edited his post after I quoted it, hence the difference in quotes)

Technically, he/she can't be nuked ^{[due to having a "Member" rank]} but might have a similar outcome to the following case ^{[with the addition of flags]}: Red trust spam from user tharani (48 times today) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1608026.0)

---

In regards to sent feedback, it will remain ^{[most likely that's also the case with flags]}...
^{- LoyceV's suggestion in regards to that (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5125324.0).}

That explains perfectly why no action has been taken towards this user.

If you can prove there is ban evasion, then sure, ban him.
If you can convince theymos to moderate the trust system, then sure, removing all his fake flags would be nice.
Otherwise, no intervention is needed, other than hitting the ignore button.

I absolutely don't agree with deleting posts or banning users because we don't like what they say. Although his views are obviously nonsense, as far as I can tell, he has kept his nonsense limited to a small handful of threads, mostly ones he has created. If you don't want to see his nonsense, just don't visit those threads. This is very different to our other infamous troll who derails any and every thread he visits.

As eddie13 had touched on, this user is rapidly becoming a great argument against BSV. Let him continue to make a fool of himself, CSW, and their trash coin.

Not to criticize your recent good form Timelord. However, can you present a clear case for NUKING/banning?

By that I mean. Can you present a clear case for this member being nuked or banned that would stand up to scrutiny in the full context of consistent sensible punishment that should be handed out to those that are the most dangerous on this forum?  You can not have SELECTIVE enforcement of NUKE / ban worthy criteria, that is unreasonably biased toward less dangerous behaviors.

I mean to decide on ANY APPROPRIATE punishment we must set some sensible thresholds and ENSURE they are applied equally to ALL MEMBERS (where their deeds are known) or else no punishment is suitable and any punishment given is therefore a strong case for ABUSE and double standards. Therefore it would have to be No Further Action - which I currently support. Until you or anyone else changes my mind.

I am not saying NO. I am saying. If he was to be nuked. Then I would want to see that HE is a more serious threat to the safety of members here than those that have not been nuked or banned.

Scammed for direct financial gain, that have weaseled themselves in to positions of trust.

ALSO flagrantly abused the trust system

Engaged in extortion or blackmail

Presented as true previously conclusively debunked information (trolling) consistently and undeniably.

These types of things. I mean if you can present a clear CASE why he should be nuked or banned and these other types SHOULD NOT be nuked or banned. Then I can give a sensible answer.

OIEIO as usual is talking SHIT whilst trying to sound reasonable. He mentions "detailing" but clearly because he is retarded and we understand that, we have decided he must have meant "derailing" as that is his current flavor of bullshit and fecal matter he splats everywhere. Whilst running away from having his OWN DERAILING off topic and irrelevant spew he plasters on our threads COMPARED TO our on topic and relevant posts that we challenge him to debunk as on topic and relevant but he keeps running away crying trolling and derailing like a whiny little girl who we enjoy laughing at.

Anyway now we have crushed that fools spurious garbage. We once again ask time lord to present his case for nuking/banning in the full context of behaviors of other members here that this BSV seems to be primarily disgruntled with.

We find BSV to have brought up some important and undeniably CORRECT observable instances from certain DT members pasts (not timelords) that could certainly be the reason so many DT have probably gone for the nuke or ban option.

His main problem seems to be in terms of alleged trust abuse (which at this time matters not since trust system is fucked AND nobody supported his flags) that he chose type 2 flags not the lemons flag. Which is just open season for anything like red tags to some members here.

THIS IS WHY POLLS SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT if you really are interested in the truth and motivation for these kind of matters.

I see only that if he is nuked/banned then a lot of DT should be leaving with him. Unless you can demonstrate by sensible debate that I am incorrect.

Recently timelord has been in good form. Although the red trust ABUSE against CH is clear. You can not (back then) give red trust on the basis of him calling moronbozo a fucking piece of moronic shit. Which of late you yourself have come close to calling mornobozo and recognizing he certainly is a little prick. Although CH has recently told us we should consider including you in DT since he thinks you are not guilty of double standards although he thinks you are trigger happy with all equally WHICH HE LIKES, and that he himself is going to include you and may remove his silly red trust he now agrees in not entirely suitable BUT is MORE suitable than the red you gave him. Clearly being involved with or demonstrating clear signs of about to engage in financially motivated wrong doing is the ONLY reason for negative trust and flags. Anything else devalues the system and is assisting scammers.

I would like to see him present a good case for nuking/banning that will stand up to scrutiny when he takes into consideration the behaviors of all members and their current level of punishment he is pushing for.

To be clear this is not criticism of timelord, quite the contrary a very useful member historically and certainly far more DT material than 99% that are there currently. No small wonder that he is prevented from being on DT currently by those that don't appreciate members they can not force into their double standards scam supporting crew.

I Know some are strictly against BSV or BCASH or anything other than BTC. I too hold BTC and feel this will turn out the correct move, although somewhere on those cold wallets I can also claim these others so no big deal if we are incorrect and swings the other way. However this alone should not be grounds to target and go after those that favor the other camp. You do not want roger ver to have a strong and undeniable point do you that unpopular opinions are censored and deleted without being dismantled in fair debate?? NO we don't because that would discredit what we have all built here together. We want the BEST decentralized trustless solution what ever that may.

As always interested in a REAL DEBATE.

Don't know why I'm bothering, but you are incorrect here:


He left 66 flags of all types across 2 days. They are all erroneous. They all have zero support.

For example,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1166
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1169
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1203

The trust abuse isn't just "alleged." It is. He's also left positive trust to every single account I've ever negative trusted, except for scam thread bumpers, and you, for some strange reason. If that isn't trust abuse, I don't know what is.

He is presently ban evading and exists purely to be disruptive to the forum.

I've officially put too much time into thinking about this so I won't be responding any further.

Hmm, well okay I will listen to a proven and undenible scam facilitator for pay who would delete the evidence when busted. Not sure why I will but still...

They do not meet the threshold for type2 flags. He is probably just mistaken and should be opening up lemons level flags?? then each one would need to be carefully evaluated against the " he likes lemons, therefore is dangerous" threshold. I think you will find not all 66 will fail to meet that. Or the he is dangerous because we think he is someone else who has never engaged in any financially motivated wrong doing either  LOL.... so he should simply change them to lemons type 1 flags right?? and all will be fine. I mean mental gymnastics and your opinion on deception (selectively) means open season for anyone on this forum for a type 1 flag. We already noted nullius is being deceptive claiming his is 2 years old on his account profile?? with some mental gymnastics on the lemons level that is certainly high risk and highly deceptive.

Or others saying their location is is mars? are they being deceptive? Lauda says he is NOT being deceptive claiming he was on the xcoin launch and confirm there was NO instamine and premine, a great project fair launch and has plenty of bags of it himself. TMAN claimed in his auction scam, he wanted to buy his own items from himself (his pal auctioning his items for him) it would be such a great deal at this silly lowest price.., only thing preventing him buying it from himself for that cheap is he had too many already in his AUCTION deception for clear financial gain where he was busted by OG red handed. Lauda tman says he was not extorting REALLY he was just ...undercover agents, no shady escrow, no trust abuse...haha bring it all here let me tear it all up in public all over again and demonstrate if BSV should be nuked THEY should be nuked along with him.

Anything You think is untrustworthy or a deception can be cause for the lemons flag. I don't think he will have much problem meeting that actually for many of those he left flags for.

Opposing your flags ( on the basis of what you have self confessed to be willing to do or become for 300bucks or there abouts or those who you support on dt or on threads or deleting evidence) ......may just be a precautionary measure and he will then work through them to make sure. Better safe than sorry and if that is his opinion who are YOU to say otherwise.


I mean if all of that ( including the real crime of not objecting to your trust abuse on our account) is MORE dangerous than your own scam facilitating for pay or even admitting you will turn evil for 300 bucks , and deleting the evidence.....then we can try and debate on a sensible level of punishment for you both.  I am up for it.

Now you have notice he is not all good (neglecting our plight) we are willing to indulge you in your assertion that he should be nuked and you should be a glowing green with a nicely paid sig on DT.

Let's get to the bottom of this do not run away. Bring your pals lauda and tman and we can get some good 4some action going in public.

Right now I am guessing if nutildah, lauda, tman are brought in on the full context (which they of course should) so we can evaluate the CORRECT level of punishment for BSV..... then we may need to add another option to the poll.

Be added to DT, chipmixer and merit source with glowing green trust. Can you add that option please timelord.

I mean sure when you demonstrate he is more DIRECTLY DANGEROUS to other members financially that either of these scumbags we can remove that option for punishment/reward again. Also I question TOTALLY that his actions with the trust system are as NET NEGATIVE as nutildahs, laudas, and tmans. Since they have little to zero support of consequence.

Again ready for open debate with anyone here on the topic of suitable and consistently credible punishment for BSVS actions and direct implications of those actions AKA the actual negative influence of them on members here currently. Seems the system that YOU guys control is already taking care of his POTENTIAL danger, whilst ENABLING your REAL DIRECT DANGER to other members.

BSV seems to have brought to light a LOT of important observable instances and created a nice warning for honest members to stumble across in various threads. This must be factored into the debate regarding his punishment also.

Is there HARD conclusive proof this person is the banned member you CLAIM? if so then why not banned?? and why was he banned previously?

Yes though, it looks bad BSV did not oppose the abuse you have left on our own account, so I will not vote for the DT, chipmixer, glowing green option just yet. Well sadly though nobody likes us here even those we support :( we do our best to cope with that whilst we endure living a lavish lifestyle outside of this forum haha


Read , take it all in and start to digest it. Then when you can debunk it clearly with observable instances and reason that we can not pull apart with ease. Then reply.

We are always happy to change our opinions and adapt and improve when we are clearly demonstrated to be incorrect. We we imagine we would feel happy. We will let you know if it happens at some time here.

Let's bring in all the bad guys here, put it all down on paper, work out who is more dangerous and then work out which punishments THEY should all have. If they should all be banned and nuked let's get on it. Not just focus on those that pose NO DANGER to ourselves and we can turn a blind eye to their wrong doing and not suggest they are nuked or banned.

BSV = no further action at this point, although certainly argument for DT and a nice paying sig if we want to be totally fair to him and lauda, tman and nutildah at the same time. Although as we say NO EVIDENCE of clear financially motivated wrong doing by BSV, so throw in a mod position hey for good measure, perhaps global.

Debunk it and we will have a rethink. These suggestions are NOT SET IN STONE. Only putting them out there so we can all reach a measured credible and sensible punishment weighed in against how dangerous they are to this forum REALLY.

Let us give equal reward and equal punishment to ALL members based on their behaviors. ELSE any action is abuse and double standards. = scamming them.

Remember these things when deciding on BSV punishment for leaving red trust or flags.

1. lauda says you  can have red trust for saying you will encourage others to review his post history

2. Tman says you can have red trust for presenting observable instances from laudas post history.

3. yogg says you can have red trust for telling tman you will tell others that he admitted "he can , he will and he just has given red trust for presenting observable instances.

4. Nullius says you can have red trust for saying " okay ban them if you must for copy and paste, but it is in bad taste and not in the spirit of this forum to ridicule them for saying they are poor and did it for money for their families"  Nullius says if you suggest it is in bad taste to ridicule poor hungry people who perhaps really are honestly hungry with hungry families" then you are depriving members of their rights to poke fun at them , they deserve it and also he was once a starving peasant and he never did copy and paste so fuck them. Also is laudas new feltching pal that will be on DT SOON so his red will soon go live likely.

5. You can have red trust for liking the taste of lemons - the fact you know lemons can kill some people and you say you like it means you are dangerous and untrustworthy to some.

6. If you were to make a joke that tmans mum is rank and she was begging you for sex in PM. That is not a joke that is a clear LIE and you are a financial danger to the forum. However they can say your parents fucked you as a child and claim anything they like and that is obviously just a JOKE.

7. If  you are rude to another member, you are potty mouthed and you are spreading lies about how nice they are really. Again more red. But then they will hate on that same member later and say pretty much the same things about them.

8. You are spreading defamation and lies, if you ask is a project knowingly hiring scammers, or scammer supporters, and then provide evidence to substantiate that question that they do not refute at all LOL

9 You can have red trust for asking people to stay on topic when they come in screaming sexual deviance at you and you say stay on topic or fuck off.

10. You can have red trust for imposing your own local rules on a thread that says you will be deleted if you bring opinions with no corroborating evidence or observable instances, then follow through with that.

11. You can have red trust for telling someone that is shouting accusations against another member without presenting evidence 2 x already on your thread, that they must present evidence or they can not repeat this accusation. You delete their 3rd same accusation and they say you are misleading people while it was still on the thread the first 2 x already and they were not removed LOL

12. You can get red trust for not knowing what scare quote are. If someone quotes 3 things you did say in a row and then puts a 4th thing right next to them in "scare quotes" and you say fuck off you liar I never said the 4th thing at all. They say...false accusation of lying = red trust instead of saying scare quotes means you did not say that one.

THIS was all I BELIEVE done under the OLD system mostly where it was SUPPOSED TO BE SCAMMING OR CERTAINLY ABOUT TO SCAM ONLY LOL

So now the threshold is lowered then it is obvious there is no such thing as trust abuse, there is no such thing as lemons flag abuse either since it is now the same as trust (preemptive striking against possible thought crimes based on whatever you feel qualifies as signs of this)

So if BSV moves them all to type 1 there is really no gripes to be had by anyone. Unless you want to clearly demontrate we are wrong.

READ , UNDERSTAND, ACCEPT.

or debunk.

The poll is bogus really unless it is made transparent (same for all polls here)
 

See Banned users (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5092983.0) for all data I have on them. I did not keep track of the reason for each ban, it's not mentioned in modlog.

I could, but I'm keen to hear what the feelings of all/any users in the forum are. More people have voted than have aired their thoughts.


As OP I've tried to give my thoughts in response to anyone who posts.  Hopefully in doing so we establish the mood of the forum and either set a precedent, allow things to remain the same, or something in-between.

---

Recently discussions were had concerning the sales of UID's and a consensus was reached on an appropriate course of action to be taken.  In essence, that's what I am trying to do here.

---

Perhaps similar action could be taken concerning GP?

---

That Flag & trust abuse is what prompted me to take this action.

---

I've previously stated that I am happy to add additional voting options (I think I can go to a max of ten choices).  People are able to vary their votes and no time frame for closing the vote exists.

May I just remind you that this is a thread concerning "Bitcoin SV" (and any Known/suspected alts), so please keep the handbags on stand-by in the Champagne ice bucket.

---

Thanks for this link - I see about 5% of all UID's have been nuked.  Far more than I thought had occurred.

Nuke, and post his email here so we can all sign him up for bukkake party invites

A modest number of voters have cast votes so far - Nuke Option has the strongest single vote.

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blob67140c21f52781fe.jpeg

The Ban Coalition is split 50%/50% with an almost identical number advocating no action/warn only.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png
Source : https://xkcd.com/1357/ (https://xkcd.com/1357/)

P.S. which country regulation should we use regarding freedom of speech in this forum?

*We* are taking a vote - so "we" are the citizens; the forum is the country.

Belize?

I think we should pool and purchase our own principality of crypto

Same here, and honestly I haven't even been following what this Bitcoin SV guy is doing.  I would agree that if there's a ban evasion involved, that would be grounds for a permaban but other than that I'd prefer not to see members banned for run of the mill shenanigans.  DT members and everyone else can take care of that in a jiffy.  

Lots of members have abused the trust system, and it's never been moderated and nobody ever gets punished for doing it.  That's just the way it is, and though I certainly don't like to see members spamming people's trust pages, I'd like it even less if staff got involved in matters of trust.  

LOL.  I think I'd get flamed if I merited this post, so I'm going to refrain from doing so.

I think a general perspective of freedom of speech is what we are trying to protect here. For me it has just one meaning, that someone's right to express his opinions should not be hampered even if they are biased. I don't see it dedicated to any nation on the forum, as it's more international.

Anyways, you can't ban opinions and specific types of thinking from the forum, they would just come back or evolve somewhere else. ;D

I think a few people are missing a step in their logic of what a person is entitled to do in this forum.  When you initially signed up you clicked on the "register" link (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=register). In registering, you agreed to be bound by the terms of the group - bitcointalk.org  It's no different to any other "free" service such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc where there are expectations of a person's behaviour - in essence people say and do almost anything on these groups. However, the community says "enough is enough" and reports users behaviour and the moderators step in.

People are banned or their accounts are wiped on Facebook / Twitter etc - you may not hear about it, but it does happen.  As LoyceV confirmed, some four percent of the bitcointalk.org registrations have been nuked.  It's the same thing, it goes on in the background - you just don't hear about it happening.

---

I can see that instead of discussing whether or not Bitcoin SV should be nuked, or not some people would prefer to turn this into a discussion about "rights".  Well, we are members of a free online community, our "rights" are what the "owners" of the forum decide it is.  "We" can only be as vocal (through appropriate channels such as this thread/poll) as Bitcoin SV in saying that we don't want them behaving in this anti-social mannor.

---

Imagine if someone walked up to your front door and used spray paint to graffiti their advertisement - that in essence is what is happening here.  It's unwarranted vandalism by Bitcoin SV on the trust / feedback walls (and Flag desecration) of users by the user Bitcoin SV.

I  tried voted ban not for a nuke. I can see no voting to select. If not scamming immense extreme profanity. Posts can remain, members can see a ban was ideal or ban was unwarranted. Temp ban and to fix his flag, when he return back. Same flags next chance, return not further to the forum. Scam post from others members must be nuke so other member not get the trap.

Option two - Ban, but not nuke.

(None of the options have changed and (AFAIK) there are no restrictions on anyone voting - I will leave this vote open indefinitely)

I do take your points, but half of what makes this forum so good is precisely because it isn't Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, or whatever. These sites all rapidly become echo chambers. People are friends with or follow others who share their views. Posts and comments which appeal to the majority are liked/shared/retweeted/upvoted, and anything slightly controversial or against the grain disappears in to the void.

Further, trust and scams have never been moderated, and there are far worse abusers on both counts than Bitcoin SV who have not been banned.

I don't think newbies can vote in polls.. I gave him a merit though so he can soon or whatever..

I don't think we want to be like facebook banning any speech "they" don't agree with..

I would say we shouldn't necessarily follow the laws of any government, but the forum has to abide by the laws of the USA, to the minimum of keeping illegal content off the site (according to the US laws) or it would be shut down I imagine, the way the forum is currently hosted/owned or whatever..

The US law says that this site CAN delete anything it wants, but only says that it HAS to delete content that is illegal to host..

I would prefer the site to be under the law of an elwar seastead owned by the forum instead of any existing government, but I would still advocate for deleting some possible distasteful content..

My data is far from complete, I don't have any data on bans for most of the time this forum existed.
Out of 2,745,342 (http://loyce.club/usernames/usernames.lastday.txt) users, 61,917 (http://loyce.club/bans/Nuked.txt) have been Nuked (2,26%), and 141,411 (http://loyce.club/bans/Autobanned.txt) have been Autobanned (5,15%). The real numbers are probably much higher.

@o_e_l_e_o and @eddie13

I for one definitely do not want to go down the path of the Facebooks/Twitters/Instagrams and their like in stamping out any and all voices at the whim of one complaint.  I'm asking the members here to consider the actions of this one UID and give an indication by poll of what they would like to be done with that one UID.

---

My thanks to @LoyceV for the clarification of the numbers of UID's that have been confirmed as banned (5.15%) or nuked (2.26%).

Agree, the conversation regarding "free speech" belongs in a different thread. That is not the point of this poll as far as I can tell. With regards to the user in question, I would vote for ban, not nuke. No need to remove all evidence they ever existed. But I believe a ban is indeed warranted for multiple reasons. Ban evasion/Trust and Flag Abuse/Trolling.

Sadly, newbies can't vote. Probably to prevent poll gaming by signing up multiple alts. I'll have a word with the puppet master. :P

I would be disappointed if alts took to voting.  So far, there appears to be a degree of maturity in this discussion, let's keep it that way.

I am not here to forking entertain you..

I am serious, let’s turn him into the Bukkake king

Your post does not help move the discussion along.

No need to nuke him, as long as he keeps his nonsense in the altcoin section.

are you that retarded that you believe the forum needs the tainted funds from you cuntnozzles?

This must be our lucky day - cryptohunter is leaving, korner is leaving, CSW has finally proven to be the real Satoshi (one or all of those may not be true).

If only they were nuked...

It's kind of funny, we all have our "lets nuke this user" person on the board.


All of those are just background noise to me, spewing their crap, posting their junk and just being trolls.
Game-protect now that is my user that I want gone. Yes, just another irrelevant troll, but I could really get behind a perma-ban on them.


-Dave

I voted warn then ban, because you might as well warn first knowing it will likely be ignored and then user can be banned with good reasoning.
Most people voted nuke I see, which I find a bit aggressive and unnecessary, but not against this if clearly a near majority would want this option.

Here's the thing: he has 50 accounts and so far at least a dozen of them have been banned. So, that should be instant grounds for banning, though I admit the proof isn't as spelled out as it could be.

Regardless, he's been temp banned, likely for abuse of the trust system. Hopefully its for a long time. I know he can just keep coming back under different accounts (and he has been), but banning his main accounts has to at least slow him down a bit.