Irrelevant parts snipped - pugman is on about users prefacing other users' names with an @ sign and the creation of a native system for the forum - the @ will often trigger notifications from individuals who use notification bots which is why excessive use can be frustrating.

Given that outside of such a system, people who would want to spam could do so without a priority system, I don't see how it could screw things up unless people are going to spam harder than the global report count, which users could still do outside of such a system.

The idea of exploiting creating systems is important to evaluate but I'd argue that a prefix method adopted by multiple high-volume reporters would vastly outweigh the potential consequences of some rogue spammer flooding "priority queues". If you just think about it from a universal perspective, you increase report efficacy and make it such that moderators can funnel down issues by severity for each user, which is highly significant if they do a lot of low-priority spam reports.

One last thing - if there is no priority system by default, everything is maximum priority - rather than users maximizing priority and abusing the system through spam, this could in fact skew spam the other way. You also don't often see users banned for spamming reports, probably because that would be a terrible use of their time via the loss of either a non-Newbie account or via the creation of Brand New account spam frameworks, which still only nets you one report per account per six minutes. Pretty bad.

I recommend (re)hacking it to add in a few particulars that are missing from the original:

1) priority text within reports (e.g. [P1], [P2], etc. prefixes)

• I order it from 1 (malware) being maximum priority to 5 (2+ bumps/day) being minimum priority

2) page-wide report for spam

---

Hopefully you won't need to use change #2 often but odds are, it probably will come to that point if you decide to take a look at 98%+ of users' profiles and 99%+ of pages from spam megathreads. I know moderators probably get sick of my reports too, which is why I inserted my priority system for better filtering.

The one thread to link them all might be a little bit old but it's a pretty good hub for resources.

Yeah, but it's also worth searching for a thread within a board...

How to find your post in a topic? was posted just a week ago

---

I'll recommend this again: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5112444.0 (Show All on long topics) since the search doesn't return all results.

Before focusing on earning Bitcoin, it would be advisable to figure out what Bitcoin even is in the first place.

Why would you accept payment in a currency that you don't understand? What if some entity were to control that currency and use it in such a way where you are exploited?

---

(Do not use the forum solely for monetary gain. You will most likely suffer consequences due to your actions.)

This will help if you want to check through threads that exceed the limit for the "all" page.

"Show All" on long topics by LoyceV

---

The problem with the search bar is that it won't return all results. You can verify this by going to the thread that I linked and searching for the keyword "script". There are two mentions on the first page and you will only get one result from the search bar.

Though, one strategy for finding posts if the date is unknown (or one is given a range) is to apply a divide-and-conquer algorithm to quickly find unique results.

When creating systems that revolve around staff/moderation the main issue is that of time. Already, with reports, you have a massive timesink for moderators and certain types of reports are more important to deal with than misinformation (i.e. direct harm to users).

Reports that are about a single post or a few consecutive posts are much more easily dealt with than something that would require logical analysis. Certain discussions also have multiple branching paths of misinformation or incorrect statements which would require more work. On and on the queue will develop, where you no longer have moderators anymore.

They've become lawyers with paperwork stacked to the skies.

Do we have anything for the Security log? Looking through the post I don't see anything that archives it (or even mention of it at all). In the past I tried to archive it about once/twice a month in order to make sure that there weren't any missing points of data but if @LoyceV wants to start scraping this, it would be a great addition for checking compromised accounts and useful information regarding account security.

That attitude is going to bring more sorrow than relief. In contrast to your views, I look upon negative feedback as achievements - battle scars from butthurt users - no one on the forum will have a clean feedback sheet forever. And if you encounter a user that decides to flog you with a slew of negatives, it's highly unlikely that they will remove it. Just take a look at my trust page as an example.

Gems like:

• I think your brain is a zero-value item
• THIS PERSON IS A PEDOPHILE ! HE WAS ALREADY REPORTED TO RELATED FACEBOOK PAGE. PLEASE REPORT THIS PERSON TO POLICE AND FBI. SEE THE REFERRAL LINK FOR DETAILS. THANK YOU!

... are probably not going to be removed any time soon.

---

Obviously, the feedback left by BG isn't because of butthurtness, but you should at least prepare yourself for the possibility of receiving negs. Thicker the skin, the less they'll get under it.

I believe Google takes some time to get the search results from new pages on the site (I'm not sure about the exact time but as an example, look up this thread's topic name). It's also probably not going to be great SEO if it's a single post (I could be wrong, refute this if you can). And if the problem is them accessing the forum from any third-party link, well, there's no real solution to that... anyone could simply write a thread, wait for it to be buried and then edit it after-the-fact to link to malware.

I personally use a [P#] prefix to my reports to label their priority from 1 to 5, something similar to a ticketing system, and I recommend fellow reporters to do the same. Malware and links that result in significant user harm should be P1, whereas spam/one-liners rest along P3 onwards, with bumps/consecutive posts at P5.

---

Could be good, perhaps with the warning disappearing after the thread has been around for x duration in order to prevent false positives.

Find me a system that I can't exploit, and I'll tell you who's doing it instead.

---

It sucks when both limitations and additions add more vulnerabilities that can be taken advantage of, though there's certainly one simple way that users can adopt to mitigate the impact of fledgling troll discussion which is to remove their platform by way of simply not responding.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that even if some users abstain from adding fuel to the fire, you'll have the huge number of generic posts piling up from bounty-sig users. If a user spreading misinformation/borderline-spam is left alone then the best-case scenario is that they get a bump every 24 hours. Trouble comes when you have multiple entities with the same line of thinking that post in each other's threads, or if the same individual uses multiple accounts.

After all, we should recall all about those fake conversations in the Altcoin sections and how horrendous they were before the bump update. As far as I'm concerned, our front-line defense against such users is merely the moderation team and active reporters, though the impact is definitely a fraction of the output that "bad" users provide.

---

Have we simply adopted the same marketplace "carpe diem" approach, then? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Last derailment for this thread (sidebar conversation should be moved to a Rep. thread or PM if you want to continue): this is in the context of compromised accounts... I don't see any huge problems here.

Post quality wouldn't deserve a positive rating (that would be silly) and a neutral rating doesn't make sense in the context of trust - why does it matter if they post high-quality topics? It doesn't make them more trustworthy. On the flip-side, if their prose changes throughout the years and is highly inconsistent with a notable paradigm of writing style changing between dates, then it's likely that the account changed hands one way or another.

What if we applied a "negative bump" to all locked threads in the Altcoin boards? If a thread is locked, then there it must have fizzled out of relevance and thereby requires no further discussion. Why else would you lock it, after all? (Self-moderated threads can be used for clearing spam)

---

Given that we've added the bump option for the boards, couldn't this be a way to fry two patties with one spatula?

Interested in seeing any problems with this idea.

Some people use tools to report posts and occasionally they can bug up. An additional problem that can happen is duplicate reports - personally, I probably have hundreds of bad reports due to that very issue.

Here's another scenario that may occur: you report the wrong post, or you have a large swathe of reports in tabs and you incorrectly enter a comment. Lots of things can happen.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Native symbol support seems like a trite use of time considering 99.5% of forum users won't even bother because they're too busy spamming 3-minute posts.

For the rest of the 0.5% that do spend more time on their posts, I'm sure they have time to look up symbols that they'll seldom use in their replies. Currency symbols are usually localized if you get your keyboard from the respective nation and if not the common equivalent would just be the currency acronym (e.g. GBP, USD, SEK, etc.)

Fractional symbols I'd argue actually make it worse for readability. I can view 1/2, 1/4 much more easily than a scrunched-up version with a diagonal divider (which a lot of mathematicians dislike) and mobile/small-screen users will definitely struggle with the symbol. These are the worst: ⅓ ⅔

---

One thing that we open up with the introduction of more and more symbols is the idea of confusables. Obviously, your additional of an [eth] symbol doesn't reach this but the introduction of further symbols starts to teeter towards the plagiarism dodging.

Example: p ; ρ  | o ; ɒ  (source)

The unfortunate part is that for every one person that decides to steer themselves away from the bounty craze, there are scores if not hundreds of users that continue the scab life - after all, what's one scam if you own 20 accounts and participate in every single bounty, waiting for one to succeed?

---

Hopefully, you find the time to learn enough about Bitcoin to join the Technical Discussion board. It needs a lot more attention than the other spam boards scattered around the forum.

Kinda unclear what Tim is even talking about.

---

Aside from checking all unread posts/threads (which sucks) there is the option to check for new topics within specific boards by clicking on the (new posts) icon next to boards with new content.

This was relevant in the previous thread from which that quote arose. Context is important here.

---

With the gravitas focused on the lack of Turkish members in the CM campaign, one might imagine possible reasons.

If it is possible for a member of non-Turk origin to post higher-quality content or perhaps content more stringent to CM's requirements/desires, then it is possible for them to be accepted over a Turkish member. You can even replace "Turk/Turkish" with any categorization you want.

Hence, how is it so difficult to believe that in some specific moment in time, members of an identifiable group that are participating in the ChipMixer campaign equal zero?

It's much stranger to deny the possibility of rejection and jump to outlandish conclusions. Before any accusations that involve my own account with some "gang" I would recommend looking at the lack of activity I've had over the past few months. I disagree with many DT members and have countered a variety of negative ratings from familiar names. I doubt that many people would think that I'm solely here for the campaign funds.

Why are we on this issue of national quotas again? It's more discriminatory to categorize users based on some identifiable trait to satisfy your statistical hubris.

Do you know how horrible it would be if ChipMixer implemented a quota: "looks like we don't have enough Turkish people on the signature - time to add some more!"

That isn't equality. That's pity.