If you mean, if you post in the OP "All posts must be in this format" or "No posts about this topic will be allowed in this thread" Then yes, that is a local rule to the thread, and people violating that rule will have their posts removed if reported. If you mean to make it complicated and say "all posts after post #3 must be *insert rule*" that is probably a little unnecessary.

That said, keep your request reasonable. If its something like, no posts with the word "the" are allowed in this thread, the local moderator might ignore it. If you want to set a rule that might be hard for a moderator to moderate, or you want to have the posts deleted promptly, I'd recommend making the thread self moderated. But something like the examples I gave above are fine.

This topic has been moved to Archival.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1418442.0

Duplicate thread, original here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1418190.0

From your first post after the moderator that moved your thread responded


First off, you aren't Bitcointalk's customers. We allow you the right to partake in the conversation as long as you follow the rules. If not, you aren't allowed to take part. Its indeed our way or the highway. Though, to be fair, if you just want to read other people's comments, you don't even need to follow our rules if you don't want, you just don't get to have an account then.

Even if this was a business, is it not true that a business owner sets the rules, and if you don't agree with them, your right as a customer is to not use that business? I'm not sure where your self entitled attitude is coming from, but it looks like this thread is resolved to me. You don't want an explanation of what happened, why the moderator did what they did, and what you should do from now, you are looking for a fight.

Since you said what I bolded above in your quote, it seems to me that you no longer wish to continue on the conversation, so I'll lock the thread. You are welcome a response to this post if you really feel necessary, but I'd probably advise against it.

Thanks, been alive, just busy. You were one of those often accused never banned due to witty and constructive insults that I almost mentioned, but since you weren't involved in the conversation, figured I wouldn't call names.


I'm assuming you are being facetious, but in case you aren't, there are indeed rules here. If you check out the unofficial rules thread stickied here in Meta, you will see Bitcointalk's rules (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0). The only reason they are considered unofficial rules even though they have been thoroughly discussed by the staff members in the thread, as well as lots of community members, is because ultimately, as long as moderators act in good faith and don't deliberately violate any rules that make sense in the situation, they have discretion.

An example of what actually happened here where moderators took action even though it would have been unacceptable by the official rules. Someone under the age of 18 was attempting to sell illicit photos/videos of themselves from a country that allowed it. By the marketplace rules, you are allowed to buy/sell whatever you want, as long as its legal in your jurisdiction. Had that rule been steadfast, removing the thread wouldn't have happened, and it would have been OK as long as buyers from countries that didn't allow it didn't take part. That's an example of why "there aren't any rules to begin with." Moderators are welcome to be as rude and unprofessional as they like, however Theymos has a vested interest in not having those sort of people be moderators for long.


I'm sure it happens, and you are exactly right. Keep in mind the population of Bitcointalk tends to skew anarcho-libertarianism. Most people here aren't 100% thrilled with the concept of moderators or limiting of their right to unlimited free speech (aka Spam/unnecessary disruptive behavior/etc) sometimes dealing with individuals, even kindly and with logic doesn't work. Sometimes you just have to give up and deal with the demanding pms asking why their thread on Bitcoin's doom due to secret lizardman affiliation was moved from the marketplace section to off topic. After an attempt or two, I personally would probably harass the person a little bit, rather than blowing up and calling them a moron. Each moderator deals with things differently.

There are some exceptions, but the reason global moderators can perma ban and not temp ban, is a permissions issue that can't be resolved due to SMF. I don't remember all of the issues specifically, but changing it is not something Theymos has done for more than a handful of people. I don't remember if its just incredibly time consuming, tedious, or if it causes issues with the forum itself.


Sometimes the lines are hard to read. I'd say that moderation of comments is done airing on the side of caution. If a post is borderline, to the point where I can't make a decision, I'll either give the poster the benefit of the doubt and leave it, or allow another moderator a shot at it. Which board a post is made also has an effect on the decision. Some discussions hold more weight than others. If a post is borderline, and driving an important matter off topic, it is more likely to be removed. Think of a post made in Technical Support vs Economics. The environment is different, and I'd wager a guess that the exact same borderline post may survive in Economics, but not Tech support.

I enjoy harassing people a bit myself, so I don't often involve myself in "trolling" cases, unless its completely obvious and nonconstructive. If it made me laugh, I probably wouldn't ban the person even if they deserved to be, which is why I tend to stay out of the issue. That and Global Moderators cannot issue temporary bans, and its not often that someone is trolling to an extent the warrants a permanent ban. So overall I would say my personal tolerance for "trolls" is higher than others.

I don't intend to discuss individuals, but some of the people you may have noticed that aren't banned but are considered trolls often use insults and satire to make posts that seem off topic, but are witty and on topic. This isn't NoFunAllowedBTCTalk.org so obviously there is some leeway. There are some that are stricter than me, but no one is going to start throwing around bans for a joke or two.


There is a fine line between abuse, and angry people speaking to each other. If you were to censor someone's post with asterisks for every offensive word they use, and the post becomes 100% unreadable, that is moderated. If someone wants to call you some names and has a point that you can respond to, that isn't moderated. We aren't here to protect your feelings from getting hurt. If you don't understand that people on the internet say mean things sometimes, well....

Moderators aren't baby sitters to make sure you get along. We are like librarians, making sure posts go to where they should be, and tell you to shut up if you are wrongfully disturbing others. 

hehe, I had my mouse over Dooglus' name when I was looking at the trust list. Saw him in Depth 2 instead of depth 1. I shall delete my prior post and this one as well if you would like. My bad.

Fair enough. I think I explained why in my opinion it (as it is now) belongs in reputation rather than scam accusations. But I'll briefly recap what it was that makes me see it that way.

Your claim: Dooglus fixed bugs in a ponzi scheme script, therefore he is liable to some extent, as the ponzi scheme operators used his script.

your statement:


Is what really gives it the ole reputation feel. A scam report is absolute. You make a claim, Party A is responsible for scamming Party B for this amount in this manner. This snipet of your OP to me reads. Some people don't like ponzis, and find them scammy or unethical, Dooglus is involved with supporting a ponzi to an extent, do the rest of you find this unethical as well? This part really feels like you are trying to alert people of Dooglus' questionable actions, and asking people to evaluate his character due to involvement in a ponzi, rather than claiming that Dooglus' involvement has directly caused this many Bitcoins to be stolen.

Of course, there are a lot of other details, but I don't really care about anything other than your claim, as thats all that is needed for classifying the thread. That is why I believe that the thread belonged in Reputation rather than Scam Accusations, however, I also understand that it's not a moderators privilege to substantiate or judge your claims, which is why I told you outright that you are welcome to move it back if you personally intended on persuing the thread as a scam accusation rather than a reputation thread. At this moment, I'd say with about a 95% degree of certainty, it is a reputation thread, however, that doesn't account for additional information you intend to post, nor your intentions on the direction you plan to take the thread. I found it very possible that you could change the direction you are taking things, and decide to pursue it as a scam accusation, which is why I said you are welcome to move it back to scam accusations.

The fact that you moved it back to scam accusations means that you interpret the situation differently, and fully intend to persue the thread as a scam accusation, rather than the reputation thread I thought you were going for. Pretty sure I said that was fine, just making sure thats what you intend to do, because it didn't seem like it to me. Is there a specific part of what I said that you are unhappy with, or are you just trying to get your thread more exposure?

It isn't against the rules to throw humor into a constructive post. Its against the rules to go completely off topic and derail a thread with non constructive information. There are some notorious "trolls" who are top quality posters. They use humor to better get their points across and bring interest to threads. The people that are bad at it are the ones that aren't allowed.

I moved it to Reputation anyway, because reviewing it all again, it looks like a real longshot to be calling Dooglus a scammer by possible involvement with a non specific thing. It isn't unreasonable for people to question Dooglus' person or reputation for something like this I suppose. Not that moderators are here to arbitrate scam reports, but unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really look like this is a scam report, rather a warning that in your opinion Dooglus has been involved in a moral gray area. I get what you are trying to say by association, but a lot of this is opinion. First on the topic of ponzis, some people think they are a scam, others do not. Not that my personal opinion matters here, but I'm using my opinion as an example. Ponzi's are not a scam by default, just because the people playing the game end up losing in the end, that doesn't mean that there isn't a calculated risk that players can take with the hope to make money. In my opinion, ponzis with express written rules (like all thousand ponzis I've seen pop up) are not scams in themselves, nor when they close down, as long as they do so in a way that abides by what they have stated to the public. I don't think of ponzis any differently than dice sites. That said, assuming that the ponzis that used Dooglus' source were in fact scams I'm still not really convinced that he would be liable by association. Not only was his association to fix bugs, but he's not really directly liable. If godaddy makes someone a website and they do something illicit with it, godaddy isn't at fault. To modify your gun manufacturer comparison, in this example Dooglus isn't the guy who manufactured the gun, hes the guy who fixed the crooked barrel that the manufacturer produced.

The biggest point I want to stress here, is my opinion asside, even looking from both my perspective and counter my perspective, via mine there is no scam accusation, and via counter, the scam accusation is incredibly shakey at best. From both perspectives, I'd say what is really in question here is a moral question as to how people view Dooglus' actions, which would belong in reputation rather than scam accusation. If what I've said is wrong and I've misinterpreted what you are going for, please feel free to move the thread back to scam accusations. I'm solely trying to help you put your thread in the correct board.

Frankly I don't care about the outcome for either of you, I have no stake in any of this, short of making sure the thread is in the location it belongs.

This topic has been moved to Reputation.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1414841.0

Feel free to move it back if you change the OP to reflect a scam, and not just a questionable moral association.

Each person has their own philosophy on ponzis, but this is the scam accusation section. Unless you are claiming that Dooglus is directly involved in a ponzi that has already scammed people, this is the wrong section. I'd move the thread to reputation or something similar, but I'll leave it to you for a while to either make an accusation that would support this thread being in scam accusation, or move it.

I guess if we are trying to get rid of the philosophy of ponzis, and get straight to the question, does Dooglus owe anyone money?

Nope, gun sales happen on the forums frequently, the OP clearly states that they are looking to do things legally, so there is no issue with buying guns. I've seen people buy from dealers like what Tecshare has posted, and also do private sales here. If you are looking to buy direct from another member, you just have to get them to take it into a gun shop that is licensed, fill out some regular paperwork, and for $50 or so (price depending) they will ship it to another gun store and the person buying can pick it up there.

In the truest form of "main" Bitcoin, then yes I suppose. Keep in mind though, Bitcoin is not a majority run system, where 51% is the requirement. Bitcoin is a consensus run protocol which requires lets say 90% or better just spitballing a %. Lots of requirements would have to be met for a Bitcoin fork to become Bitcoin and not just a Bitcoin fork. It involves adoption by all available services, exchanges, users, etc.

*cough cough cough* as the moderator of that alt coin board of which you are speaking of, Theymos asked me if I wanted to be the moderator (actually I might have asked him at the time) and then a thread asking for people's opinions was created to make sure everyone was alright with me. I just happened to word it like a "vote for me" thread, because I thought it would be funnier that way. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122465.0

On another side note, this Mushboi has been implying threats toward my shoes should I not give him my vote of confidence. If anything happens to them now that this information is public, we will hold you accountable.

People could decide to moderate via trust sales of all materials made with carbon if they decided they wanted to do so. You lose your credibility if people don't support you however. People seem to find selling Microsoft keys morally wrong, which is why they leave negative trust. That has nothing to do with moderation policy.

I personally think people who violate TOS generally speaking aren't hurting anyone either, but that is decided on a case by case basis by users, not moderators. (Unless the TOS you are violating is also illegal) My point was that moderators are not responsible for upholding every company's individual policies, if you do something that violates a company's TOS and you get banned from their services, or your buyer gets banned from the service, its up to the individuals to deal with any consequences of that.

Correctly, threads that are dealing in illegal goods are removed, digital or non digital. To the point about the people moderating the section, moderators do have a bit of discretion. If it is illegal for you to buy oranges that have been dropped on the ground at some point in Ethiopia, and someone is selling dropped oranges, the moderators will probably not care enough to touch it.

Another thing to note, the forums doesn't care about individual service TOS. For example, if you are selling an online game currency, but its against the game TOS, we don't care to uphold their TOS. That pretty much applies across the board.

Units of evil accumulate in particular on Tor nodes and Proxies, as people get banned on them. The explanations above pretty much have it all written out. The same could be true of whatever IP you are using now. Its to prevent floods of spammers. 21k satoshis is so easily obtainable, its only a hinderance to people trying to register hundreds of accounts. Finding a nickle in the street is about equivalent to spending a few minutes hitting faucets. If you have to find hundreds of nickles though, it gets time consuming, and makes it less attractive to make spambot operated accounts.

The people above explained it pretty well. Something I wanted to add though, is even if you have NSFW in the title (which you need) you still may not insert NSFW pictures themselves, you may however link them with the nswf tag. To explain a little better, if the ham sandwhich was a NSFW picture.

https://i.imgur.com/4GopY2k.png - NSFW

is allowed



Is not