Bitcoin Forum

Two of the three unjust negatives I've received from people have been from users who have been butthurt after being permanently banned. Just got another from ladybitcoin aka MoneyGod/waqas/ReBoRn/faiza1990/saif92 + many more. If you can't post or send messages whilst banned you shouldn't be able to leave feedback either.

The feedback from ladybitcoin isn't even correct. It is my understanding that staff doesn't even ban anyone (except newbies?) and anyone that knows this fact would know the feedback is invalid.

It is possible that someone were to get scammed right before they are banned plus someone could create a new account and leave feedback. (Trust is not moderated).

Personally I would look at your overall feedback and consider you trustworthy so I wouldn't worry about it.

Obviously it's not correct and he's just trying to slander because he's butthurt that he got banned. None of his posts ever make sense because he can barely speak English and it's his barely coherent shitposts that made all his alts blatant. I won't lose sleep over the feedback but I still think banned users shouldn't be able to leave it regardless.

Well what would be the difference between a banned user sending false feedback and someone creating a new account and leaving false feedback? At least with a banned user leaving false feedback you can easily speak to the reason for the feedback while this would be more difficult if it was a newly created account via tor/vpn (no IP connection between the two accounts can be made).

Why not let banned users post and message? Because they're banned. At least they still have to go to the trouble of creating a new account to leave feedback.

I guess you do have a good point about restricting what they should be able to do while banned. Although I think a banned user should be able to post in meta if they are banned to be able to dispute a ban, this would stop badbear from having to explain why someone was correctly banned (the community could just point to their crappy posts) but this is a different discussion.

I would say there is an argument both ways. On one side you should restrict what someone can do while banned as much as possible and leaving negative feedback could get a mod to unban a user in an effort to work out the negative feedback.

On the other hand the forum takes a very liberal stance as to what is allowed for feedback to avoid the appearance of helping a potential scam. As well as the fact that someone could have actually gotten scammed right before getting banned so they should be able to warn others.

Wouldn't it just to be easier to delete the account?

Yes you're right , the users banned can't do anything(until their un-ban). They can only watch the forum , nothing more. Or at least this is my meaning of the word : ban.

No one going to trust not trusted feedback without trusted references.

SO no need to worry

How about banned users should show "banned" on their profile? It would help clear things up. So, when users see a member is banned, they can disregard the negative trusts he gave.

No even perma bans probably get unbanned in special circumstances.

That was already supposed to have been the case, but it wasn't working. I fixed it.

For some strange reason, there's no way to use SMF's allowedTo function to accurately test whether someone can post unless you have a board loaded. allowedTo('post_reply_any', array(1)) doesn't actually check whether someone can post replies in board #1, and apparently this form of allowedTo isn't used anywhere in SMF, presumably because it's broken... I wonder whether this is fixed in 2.0.

Damn, I had some of them in my campaign. Now I know why they all disappeared at the same time.  ;)
I agree that banned status should be visible for other users. Right now we don't really know if the guy isn't answering because he fled, or simply got a temporary ban.

Agreed. I think there should be some sort of distinction shown between temp and perma as well.


Yeah, assumed it wasn't allowed on purpose. Thanks.


 ;D I'm really surprised no one else seemed to notice they were all the same person. He's got a really distinct semi-coherent shitposting style and something else that blatantly gives his alts away every time. Wont say what it is cos I know he'll keep coming back  :D.

If user zolace is banned (I thought he was) then how come his trust is still showing in my feedback ???

Their trust doesn't suddenly disappear once they get banned, they just can't leave anymore once they are.

So is this fixed now, as your second sentence suggests or is it still a problem as suggested in your explanation?

I agree with hilariousandco, a ban should be a ban.

Thanks for the forums!

I fixed the SMF allowedTo function.

Bravimissimo! Either way, people wouldn't trust feedback from users like them.