Why not just ignore individuals? Automatically ignoring thousands of people would probably do more harm that good. The point of ignoring someone is to not see garbage posts, there is no way an entire usergroup can be clumped together for post quality. The ignore feature is for people you dislike, and those that you feel provide nothing to conversations so you would rather not read their responses anyway. I can see a lot of issues arising from mass ignoring people. There are threads where people discuss their ignored list if you feel you have missed people you meant to ignore, but I cant see turning the ignore system into a popularity contest going well.



And there goes people's rights to pseudonymity. Also, you would then only be allowing people who own phones to register for the forums.

There isn't a universal trust score for people, you are exactly right. On your personal trust list, you trust feedback from Default Trust, and yourself (Assuming you haven't made any modifications to your trust list) however, one can modify their trust list however they like to modify how they see trust. If you remove default trust from your trust settings, you won't see feedback left by default trust members as "Trusted". If you add XScammurzUrMoniesX to your trust list, you will see feedback they leave as "Trusted" feedback, but no one else will.

Correct. Its the way to delete topics, however still have the ability to bring the thread/posts back if necessary. If your threads are moved to trashcan, then the thread is spam/illegal. IE, you don't want your threads moved to trashcan, its a warning just like having posts deleted.

I know we have discussed it in the past, I was even against stickying it, as it was uneccessary, but in light of recent increase in spam ban outrage, hopefully people will see the list of unofficial rules before posting, although I wont hold my breath. That said, thats why I mentioned that I was stickying it in the first place, so if Badbear has a reason to unsticky it, he can do so and knows who to tell why. I really couldn't see any downsides after evaluation, so I figured why not.

Just a heads up, I stickied the thread for you. With the thousands of "what did I do wrong?" meta threads popping up, I didn't think that your pretty well documented list of basic rules needed to be fighting for the front page or be bumped daily for people to find it. The poll is pretty overwhelmingly in support, and its pretty clear that it is the unofficial rules, so it doesn't interfere with the necesity for the rules to be flexible to deal with issues on a case by case basis. If there is any concern about this being stickied, direct it at me. At the moment I can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't be, so I acted.

Thanks mprep and contributors.

The sooner people realize that, the sooner 90% of the issues with the trust system are immediately fixed. My favorite person to trade with was Dank, because the goofy bastard always included some sort of interesting surprise that left me on the ground clutching my sides in an attept to cling to any air that my laughing gasps would allow into my lungs. He was a confirmed scammer, so I just made sure I took appropriate measures in trading with him, ie the use of escrow when necessary, etc. But the feedback left against him allowed me to judge potential threats. Someone who bought an account from someone exhibiting scammy behavior in my opinion would not warrant the same level of paranoia as trading with someone who ran off with 1,000 Bitcoins from an exchange or something like that. But, If I was trading with nyktalgia, the fact that they bought the account from someone who was a potential scammer is definitely information that I'd like to know. People leaving negative feedback, keep up the good work. People who disagree with the negative feedback, I agree with you.  

Trust is all subjective anyway so it doesn't matter. There is a basic divide in this discussion, those that believe an account sold gets a fresh slate, and those that don't. If all of the people who don't believe they get a fresh slate leave negative feedback, only those that believe that will care about their feedback.


redsn0w, if I may use your comment to elaborate. Lets say that redsn0w believes what they do, they bought what they bought, no clean slate for them. I on the other hand, believe that after the account was sold, the new owner no longer deserves the negative feedback. If I was to buy a pizza from nyktalgia, I'd look at their feedback to determine the best course of action. I see redsn0w's feedback, but I disagree. We don't need to hold a petition to set trust rules or get redsn0w to change their feedback, I will just personally ignore redsn0w's note, because I don't agree with them on the matter. And we proceed with the deal.

We change the senario, and I'm hilariousandco (no I'm not really, because someone will misquote this if I dont mention that we are not the same person (or are we?)) I agree with redsn0w that the negative trust is deserved. I value their opinion, and before I buy that pizza from them, I take what I consider appropriate measures. My point being, feedback is relative, as long as people explain why they are leaving the feedback they are, others can judge it's validity based on their own concerns. Thats the reason the feedback system doesn't need rules, because each person will use it differently based on the situation and what they personally believe. Numbers and red letters don't mean anything, what matters is the content of the feedback itself. The source it comes from, the reason, and the backing.

That is correct, the OP has the authority to specify who is not allowed to post in their threads. If you would like, you are welcome to create your own thread. Further posting after being warned by the OP results in moderator action.

Calling it the Ponzi section would then require an additional section for other "investor based games" so why not lump them all together? I think all gambling is a scam, dice sites are just as scammy as ponzi sites in my opinion, however I have no objections to people gambling/wasting their money as they wish, I just know that I wont. If people dont like ponzis, they can avoid the section. If they have an objection to words spoken in french, they can avoid the french section, no one is forcing anyone to partake in anything. At this point, no one is being tricked into dumping money into a ponzi scheme, because the ponzi schemes are telling everyone that they are a ponzi scheme, and people are still dumping money in.

I didn't take it as such, I interpreted it as asking a question, so I figured I'd respond to at least half of it. As hilariousandco said, odd things are happening with email notifications as of late, so I'm not sure how to explain the lack of other notifications. For others wondering what the best way to be 100% certain what happened to your threads, go to your profile, and click show posts. There you will see if your threads ended up in the trash can, moved elsewhere, etc. That is, if a redirect topic wasn't posted.

I'm not sure what happened with the post notifications, but when a moderator moves a thread, they have the option to leave the post moved stub, or to just move it. More often than not, I dont leave the stubs behind, as they just clutter the front pages until they dissapear, in which case it doesn't matter if they existed in the first place, as no one is going searching through more than a couple pages looking for a thread. I think most people would just check their recent posts to see where the thread is.

Well I'm sorry but I dont think we can explain any better. It has nothing to do with scams, it has to do with spam. Spam ruins a forum and drives members away. We are obsessive about removing spam, and by doing so keeping spammers from driving all of our members away, allowing people to have conversations about Bitcoin related topics without having to sift through spam threads/posts and other junk. As I said, this is not a grey area, it is well defined in this situation. What you are asking to do falls solidly under the forum's definition of spam. Its not a definition that has any need for change, so theres really nothing to do about it at this point.

I don't understand how you don't comprehend this. The administration sets the rules, the moderators weigh in on rules and help to enforce them. Community members sometimes propose ideas to alter rules that have grey areas in them. We listen, and make adjustments if needed.

This is not one of those cases, the answer is no, please stop wasting everyone's time and spamming meta. This conversation has carried over three threads now, and for what purpose? You asked for an explanation, it was given over three threads. You ask for a change, we say no and explain. We are really at the point where if you disagree, that too bad and your best bet, as mentioned three threads ago, is to create your own forum where you can create a safe haven for people to flood the site with spam, so those that enjoy sifting through spam to find information they are looking for have a place where they can be happy.

What is your end goal here? To have the administration/staff lift essentially one of the only rules of the forum that has lasted for five years? As I've said repeatedly, this isn't a rule that is up for discussion.

We ask that people please delete their old bumps, for example if you had a thread that you bumped once every 24 hours, but you left all of the "bump" posts from days/weeks/months ago. It really helps to declutter threads if you remove your old bump posts. Generally deleted posts are considered warning, that most likely is not the case in this situation, but we do please ask that you at least try to delete old bumps in the future.

The removal of newbie jail was something that had been planned for a long time before it happened. There are a multitude of reasons that it wont be coming back. There is no way around it, newbie jail is a deturrent for people who aren't its intended purpose. Spammers/botters etc don't care about newbie jail in the slightest. Its taxing on the staff, it promotes spam rather than preventing it, and it inhibits legitimate membership. If you just read an article about Bitcoin, are now interested in learning more, and come here for some info; if the forum's restrictions turn you away thats one less person to enter the Bitcoin community, to be active in real conversation, and to be a member of what it is thats built here.

All of that said, there seems to be a common misconception that newbie jail does something positive. I have yet to find a single positive thing that newbie jail does for us, they are all negatives, why reinstate it?

To quote myself:
Point being, newbie jail is a strain on the staff, and it doesn't do anything positive. The only people it interupts are the individuals with 1-2 accounts that are here to actually learn/discuss. A 4 hour waiting period doesn't discourage spammers, because they just make 20 accounts and wait for the accounts to get out of newbie jail in shifts.

I dont follow, you are proposing a place for people to voluntarily screw themselves over by giving out the names of their alts? Why would anyone volunteer that information? Even account sellers don't make it public the names of the accounts they are selling, because then people mark them with negative trust.

The OP of a thread can say that a member is not allowed to post in their thread, whether it is self moderated or not. If you ask someone to stop posting in your thread, and they continue, yes they will be banned. Caviats on that, are you have to make sure the other person has knowledge that they aren't allowed to post in your thread. If you slip it into the OP without notifying them, they wont be banned if they haven't seen it, so make sure you are clear when banning people from your threads.

Deleted posts constitute a warning.

As many as you can handle whilst keeping post quality up while avoiding spamming. Keep in mind, the only real way to avoid spamming is to think critically about posts and topics you respond to.