Asking an absurd premium ($450 for 2 oz), and making only a single coin available to the collectors is "well intention"?

Update: Okay, I'm out of this thread completely. There have been so many fallacies, such as classic ad hominem (to specialized forms such as poisoning the well), false assumptions, hasty generalizations, straw man arguments and so on (not to mention the false knowledge regarding the trust system). This is really intelligence damaging. That said, I'm looking forward to see how CI will make up for this *misjudgment*.

You're welcome.

Theymos is usually too busy and overwhelmed by PMs to respond. You should try discussing the situation and options with Cyrus.

Search for members work, just the 'display all members page' isn't.

There's only 1 active global moderator at this time (hilariousandco) and they did respond here I think? They are also helping tackle spam elsewhere. I respond here often as I'm very strict regarding spam and as a patroller, there's only so much to do during the day.

Where is the list of the 9 people that *got* offered and *bought* these coins? I'm pretty sure that not all of them want to remain private, so might as well let us know (otherwise the story can't be verified at all).

The bot is based on account creation patterns and posting patterns. Obviously there are going to be patterns that haven't been discovered/added to the bot.

Again, nuking (only applies to newbies or brand new): Permanent ban + IP ban + deletion of all posts + clearing of profile. Ban: Permanent ban + clearing of profile.

You'd have to take that up to Cyrus and Theymos.

Which is a bigger issue IMO and that's why the other reports should be moved onto another thread, as they tackle a different issue. Dormant backlink bots aren't causing any *real harm*.

Handled both of these. I think that you should create your own thread as this is different than the intended accounts being reported. These are usually spambots (backlink spam and whatnot), while OP started reporting sig. spammers and heavy account farmers.

---

This thread is too big as it is.

The second link ('2016') is dead.

Concerns from your T&S:
This is too much IMO, and I'm pretty sure that quite a number of people have not read this.

This option is not available to any kind of moderator I believe. The administrators are likely the only one with access to it (if it exists). The best that moderators can do is 'nuke' and that seems pretty adequate.

This is usually used just to combat spam that does get reported. Obviously moderators don't have time to keep track of each and every registered member. If the profile page is not clean, that still may not mean that they are not banned (this change happened sometime in 2016 IIRC). I'd tackle that MMM spam, but 30k accounts is overkill for a single patroller. I've looked into this a bit, there are some people with higher ranks still posting with that.

---

If you find some other patterns with reasonable quantities (maybe under 1k accounts) you can PM me directly.

Permanent ban + IP ban + removal of all profile information. Patrollers are able to nuke newbies, administrators and some global moderators are able to apply temporary and permanent bans to all members.

---

Or it could mean this. I may be a cat wielding nuclear weapons.

It happens. I was also on DannyHamiltons list for a while in 2015 until they've read some quoted input from me.

This is why it's hard to keep a track of big lists. It would be much better to ban the blatant spammers in the first place.

I've just nuked all of them. They seem to be linking to weird websites, although I've found no malware on them (Example - click on your own risk). A fair number of them were proxybanned as well. A few were banned, but bans didn't remove profile information in the past.

That's usually how standard bots operate on this forum, the difference is that these do not post but spam via profile information.

Those were (or are) spam and were usually nuked on sight (after they posted). After realizing that, some probably kept registering without posting. If you can compile a list of links, we could nuke them relatively easy[1] (even though they aren't/won't cause harm).

---

Update: [1] Re-read the post and realized it's 35 thousand.

No, it is not self contradictory. The meaning behind this statement is that you should post all around the forum, e.g. do not make that 1 post constantly in the same section. Short bursting would be classified as posting almost all the 'to-be-counted' posts within a day or two.
Update: Adjusted it slightly.

No. You're fine to not post for some periods. You're not likely going to get banned if you have made constructive posts, but have been inactive for a while.

Google translate and length of posts is adequate to rule out the first line of obvious spammers. A step above that is getting help from acquaintances from the respective local section.

All posts are counted automatically upon the rule set mentioned above. That said, if I see someone abusing the Press section (constantly posting articles to get paid), they're likely going to get banned.

I don't care about the nature of the post as long as it is constructive. 'Name-calling', 'FUD spreading (e.g. "Segwit is an altcoin")' is likely not going to be acceptable. Any kind of constructive criticism with at least some truthfulness is *welcome* (this goes for any kind of topic being discussed).

It was just a huge pile of AD hominem, due to them getting banned.

I'm very well aware of that.

This may actually be a good idea. I'll check with theymos to see what he thinks.

That example is really an obvious one if you look at the second page of last posts. I'm not aware of other methods, maybe someone else has a suggestion or two.

It is trivial for moderators to check whether someone is banned or not. I just have to take a look at their profile. I'm not sure if we should do it though, but in this clear case the member is not banned.

Yes, I think I've reported this one in the cleanup yesterday.

I would permanently ban this one as it likely correlates with many other 1 line spammers that used to be in Bitmixer. I do not have the tools/access to recognize sold accounts.

There is really almost no valid reason for one to sell their account here. Even if they were desperate for money, then the best thing to do would be to put it in as collateral for a loan.

I'm not sure about that, nor what other moderators/administrators think. Currently, banned users get stripped of their signature and other profile information (implemented sometime in 2016 IIRC).

The other prizes are more like consolidation prizes, and I think they're pretty decent considering the ticket price. Regarding the first prize: The Green Raven-bit is worth 10-15x of the raffle ticket alone.

3 from first lot, and 0 from second, right?

Confirmed. Thank you.

---

11 tickets to go!

No. I'm telling you what the situation is now, and what may be acceptable. Having an alt account just to discuss something is fine in my view (obviously if you don't abuse it for any other purposes).

No, that's not how the forum works. You don't get to blame the forum because the crowd isn't properly acquainted with how it works.

Well, some argue that you can't halt account sales completely (which is a straw-man) and I'm sure that the staff is well aware of this. Others argue that the prices of accounts will go up which would encourage more farming, and so on. Generally speaking, I do believe that it would take a decent hit on the spammers market. Keep in mind that: If you get busted for trading even once, you'd get permanently banned (along with any accounts that you own). If that isn't considered a high risk/low profit trade, then I don't know what is.

We can actually. We're aware of plenty of public sales, and there's a fair amount of accounts that have been tagged for this very reason. In addition to that, the administration has more tools to detect these. As I said, the primary thing about the idea is the added risk of a permanent ban (both sides).

I think that having one or two alts is fine, and kind-of-encouraged in a free speech environment (e.g. a case where stating something may receive 'negative feedback' on your main account). The problem is the people account farming (we're talking about tens to hundreds of accounts).

That's not reputation, that's activity.

Update: All of those have been banned yesterday already.

No, you are wrong. Account sales can't be stopped, but they can be made bannable. If we make this a punishable offense, this introduces a huge risk to both parties involved in such trades. I'm pretty sure that this would have a decent effect on this though.