There are a set of posts that belong to a space that resides within "not removable via reports" and "horrible to read". These posts come in various forms, involving ever-so-slight trolling, padded posts resting on the precipice of spam, regurgitated posts, and blatantly wrong information.

It is highly improbable that you have not encountered at least one of these posts. If you've ever read a post and immediately thought afterwards, "this post says nothing in so many words," then you share in the suffering. Reports take time to bake and it isn't that feasible to report the thousands of posts of spam (but borderline forum spam) every day nor is it feasible for moderators to go through all the reports.* I would like a system that can dissuade users from such posts though I share the same concerns of abuse once the ability for such restrictions arises.

---

Example half-assed post for reference, in relation to the thread.


Real stream of consciousness bullshit right there. (don't forget to do some extra padding with spacing between each sentence!)

Depending on your proficiency in computer science and/or mathematics, you could glean some additional benefit from what I personally used to learn about bitcoin: the developer documentation and the developer reference which are available at bitcoin.org

---

And obviously if you haven't read the whitepaper yet (hopefully you have) then that is also definitely something to investigate.

Even for people who don't understand too much technical jargon should be able to handle the whitepaper and site guide, though. Only the references start getting very esoteric.

How did you come to the conclusion that the most reasonable and accessible resolution was not to address the members that you believe are dismantling the trust system, but rather to double down on your oppression olympics and try to reduce the system itself to dust?

Anarchy is totally fine - you can go to forums that don't have usernames for that.

Unfortunately, the conclusion results in the trite observation: if everyone is trusted, nobody is trusted.

If we're doing this in the scope of the entire sample then I don't see the use of individualizing trust. One important thing to note is that the idea of a grouping of individuals in DT1 is inevitable and can always be construed regardless of the distribution of trust and distrust throughout the system.

Any time there is mutual trust, one could claim (without any astoundingly explicable reason, mind) that there is a conspiracy, a gang, et al. To forgo sensibilities and leap towards asinine "revolutions" in a privately-owned forum with administrators is to have a childlike fit the likes of the Reputation board.

I don't quite understand this.

From what I gather, the situation is as follows:

The user found an answer to a question from another site. [perfectly fine]
The user decided to copy the exact text from the site. [perfectly fine*] *(given negation of the following)
The user did not credit the source of the original text. [not fine].

It's a little weird that you're being so vehement towards your friend/colleague's account and that they haven't written a single word of their own to defend themselves.

---

Forum rules are easy to find. I read them on my first day, IIRC.

I don't even understand the second point: a writing style change = Lauda?

---

I love skepticism but if it's just rudimentary rhetoric repeatedly reduced to an inundated indignant cascade of your stream of consciousness, then the logic rarely follows. The homo sapiens are not creatures of logic regardless of how much their hubris pushes them to that conclusion: most if not all facets stem from that of emotion which is a very volatile element of humanity.

If you wish to continue to embarrass yourself, then you may proceed. Or, perhaps not. For the idea of embarrassment, of humbleness, of self-realization resides in someone with self-awareness. Those who are not think that their actions are absolutely correct in spite of what others may say, or perhaps even in spite of evidence. When an argument devolves to a point where one must continue to make deflections, create continual inexplicable claims to both save face and to create attention, when one suffers from delusions of grandeur and assumes mass conspiracy theories revolving around them, when one slings around ad-hominem as if it were a subconscious reaction of their body... they need to take a step back to self-reflect, if even possible.

I know that at least for Canada, there's this company: https://www.risewallet.com

Found them out due to a collaboration with coincards, another CA-based site. I have actually seen quite a number of bitcoin ATM's around, so there's another benefit to my location (oh no, self-dox!)

It would be great if resource-intensive restrictions were lifted in relation to rank progression, similarly to the time restrictions with forum actions.

Certainly, if any user is particularly egregious, they can be singled out and there will be diminishing impact on the forum, no?

---

These developers really aren't pushing out the QoL patches, tsk. Maybe eventually epochtalk will leave early access

Meta and Reputation seem to hold a dense distribution of merit but a sensible hypothesis would be that the other prominently "active" boards are often filled with posts of substandard quality. I doubt many would object to my disappointment in the * [dD]iscussion threads, nor would they object to a cleanup of the Altcoin boards.

If users started posting better-quality posts and threads (not those generic read-title-reply threads) then perhaps there wouldn't be such a lack of incentive to delve into those boards. Speculation and Economics have started to improve, but only just slightly. I still actively go into those boards to seek out spam, not to seek out quality posts.

Lot 3 @ 0.0015

LocalBitcoins has its drawbacks and I'd generally advise against it for new users of Bitcoin, especially as human error reaches drastic levels when you're dealing with novel financial transactions. It's important to actually look into your various options (don't take advice blindly/at face value) and OP would likely benefit from putting some extra time into something that involves money.

A lot of exchanges have KYC and newer crypto users might shrug it off as an unpreventable sacrifice for accessibility, but it's important to really figure out what happens when you decide to use certain platforms.

I'm not sure how much QA testing theymos has done with the distrust/trust lists but hopefully it can handle the edge cases of strange character interactions with backslashes and tildes in one's name.

Not sure if you can even register with something like \\~\~~DefaultTrust but surely it looks like it might have a chance to break something

You've got it the other way 'round:

"If you want to trust someone whose name begins with a tilde, prefix their name with a backslash."

---

It's as easy as
~~DefaultTrust
~~~DefaultTrust

As stupid as it looks.

Backslash is only to get rid of the intended meaning of the tilde, which is to distrust... and since you're not looking to trust "~[...]" but rather distrust, you needn't use a backslash.

Just to clarify, this is the pertinent rule: "No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads"

Really, it casts a large enough net/umbrella to catch most of the varied forms of spam. Burst posting is merely an action that one performs to create multiple spam posts.
A spam post could be deemed so due to the context of the thread:

Suppose there are already 10 replies, of which highlight similar solutions or remarks about the given topic. If you decide to write an 11th reply and fail to add anything of substance that is novel, then you are merely repeating the previous replies in the thread and thereby not contributing to the discussion. Thus, insubstantial quality - multiple posts of this kind in quick succession would likely be considered "burst posting".

---

Pedantry does get tiresome, doesn't it?

I always try to maintain my reports to within the last 3 to 4 months, only stepping over the bounds if the user has particularly egregious post quality or if there is something critical to check out. I really don't see the point of people reporting posts older than that: notwithstanding exceptional cases, you can anticipate that those posts would be invariably buried beneath the subsequent lackadaisical replies or beneath the newer, spammier threads in the board.

If some mongrel really has a vendetta against QS, there are certainly more productive ways to lash out at them than doing these sneaky reports if that's the intention.

Imagine if you searched for the word "the" which you repeat at least twice in this thread. The search results would only show one of those replies rather than the entire set.

I believe what you're referring to is the issue of topic/post parity - search results only revealing one reply per thread.

I do not recall any methodology to combat this. Even Google results have the same issue, IIRC.

What's the original topic? It's possible that a "shifting necropost" caused posts to be reported & deleted, subsequently moving replies upward to where they are the new source of a necrobump.

---

I have seen this happen a few times and reported some of them myself: replies chained to a root of an insubstantial necrobump are equivalently infected with the lack of substance, in my opinion.

In regard to the whole ToS pedantry, a distinction to make would be the following: whether the account that the friend of OP registered was their first or a subsequent account. The former should not raise any issue (we can pick apart semantics if desired) and should be in line with the terms, as confusing as they are. The latter does pose dubiousness but the violation of ToS should not be reflected with an immediate asset seizure. I doubt anyone would see this as morally or legally just.

---

Though, NS probably doesn't have a problem with that since they masquerade the rollover requirements as AML precautions.

Well, if you don't vote then you are of the "no double standard" faction but the idea here is to propose that the two users have opposing results regarding their ban. If it isn't indicative of a double standard, then you can explain in a reply (as suchmoon as done so).

Comparing the cases of plagiarism and ICO bumping though...

Right... I'm not sure what the conflict of interest is here, though.

That's why we have a thread! For replies, discussion, discourse.

I have no problem with extending the signature ban indefinitely. In fact, to all users.

Ah, and there lay the problem with the 100-wide monthly-cycling DT1 circle, which adds even more DT2 users to the table.

I agree.