Fixed! Posted in Technical Support and got my account back fast as lightning!
What did you post in technical support? This thread. If anything it made it take longer, technical support is for technical support with bitcoin, not the forum. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, scams aren't moderated but global mods and admins can still see reported pm's and verify the quote or screenshot is legitimate. There's nothing wrong with the suggestions, but to say the only way is to allow a trusted member to log into your account isn't true.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that deserves a serious answer so...
I too prefer to get my information about how the forum works from random third parties instead of staff.
|
|
|
|
|
Sig campaigns are a service, asking if someone is defrauding a service=service discussion, or maybe scam accusations if it were a statement. Doesn't have much to do with the forum itself.
|
|
|
|
Both posting and leaving a negative trust rating are a form of speech, which should be equally p
rotected by the forum and the community.
Should be protected, unless you're on default trust, then you need to suck it up and deal with it. Not really fair. I'm not a big fan of the practice, but double standards aren't good either. |
|
|
|
Guess i should not reveal a secret of many who stay logged in 24/7
Even when on vacation or sleeping !
lol
Write a script to refresh the page, or there are plugins that do so automatically i think for most popular browsers
Staying logged in or using autorefreshers has no effect your activity. |
|
|
|
|
PM me, looks like a false positive.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think so, he has more posts than activity, so he only needed to make one post to gain 14 activity. I haven't looked at his posts though.
|
|
|
|
I had removed him. Please message me users, I often don't notice these threads until too late. A disturbingly large portion of the posts in those threads are all his accounts. Many thanks to bit-x for their continued contributions to the forum  . Could you let me know his alts so that I may ban/remove them? If you can't then I can't do much about it. Hilariousandco covered a lot of it already but: No, I'm not going to share user information with you. I've offered you suggestions on how to get around that in the past. Require a pm from the user to collect payment, or require at least one post a week (almost all the bans are at least a week if not more). The first you don't do, would be easy since you use a bot. The second, after I suggested it, you then went to weekly payments, rendering it useless. And yes there is a lot you can do, you just don't want to do it. At the very least just look at the threads and put a little time into it (it isn't rocket science), it is your job after all, is it not? If you can't do it, don't you think you should fix that? Do you really think just paying people to post and letting everyone else deal with the garbage that results is going to end well? Do you know what I think when I see Bit-X? I think spammers, the same ones that spam my email with INCREASE YOUR PENIS SIZE NOW!@@LOOK@@. Yes i agree with all your points there but i also think that bans happen more often now that there are a lot of signature campaigns than before and not only because theres more people that spam or post insubstantial posts, i remember a year ago when i was using my other account and there were only a few signature campaigns, i never participated in any and i used to post pretty shitty posts without really realizing and sometimes i had my posts deleted, even 10 of them deleted the same week and never got banned and i never saw anyone else getting banned for it, maybe someone if he made waay too many insubstantial posts.
If you have a signature ad now you are more likely to get banned which is kind of stupid, mods should only take in count your posts quality not if you have a signature ad or not, just look at the people that got banned recently and complain here in the meta, 90% of them were banned because of sig ad + insubstantial posts and the others were permabanned for various reasons, i havent seen anyone getting banned for spamming without a signature ad.
No, people get banned for insubstantial posts, and other reasons without having sig ads. Difference is, the bans for sig spammers literally cost them money (in some cases, a lot if they have multiple high ranking accounts) by banning them. Getting it reversed would not only allow them to continue posting, but somewhat validate their previous posts as well. Most others get banned? They know why, and they deal with it. Overall, very few of the not related to sig spam bans are ever posted about in meta. The majority of sig spam bans do, though I have seen less of it lately (they don't want their campaigns to know they were banned). - First, it would put pressure on signature campaign managers to to do a better job of not allowing people who consistently make low value posts to continue to participate in their signature campaign, which will get people to put more effort into their posts
- If signature campaign managers put a good amount of effort into minimizing the above stats, then over time the forum will be a more pleasant place to converse and the overall viewing experience will be more pleasant
- If signature campaign managers do not do an effective job of minimizing the above stats, then their company's reputation will suffer, and the company will have incentives to replace the signature campaign manager
- If a signature campaign is associated with a large amount of paid signature related spam, then participants will want to disassociate themselves with that signature campaign in order to avoid being associated wit signature related spam. If this were to happen then additional pressure would be put on both signature campaign managers and companies advertising in order to exaggerate my first and third points
I've suggested making campaign managers more responsible for their participants and instead of giving users 1/2/4 week bans we do the same for campaign managers for their 1/2/3 offences of not doing their job properly and keeping an eye on their participants. Of course they should be given a polite warning first that they need to step up their game but if they don't a week ban should come next, then 2 weeks and a month. Maybe a perma ban after that but most should get the idea after their first ban. I think this would give campaign managers the motivation to actually do what they're supposed to because it's going to damage their business if they're banned. For the campaign managers that do their job and check users before they're allowed on the campaign and before they get payment I see next to zero spam like on Rollin, but then you get campaigns like yobit who only kick members off after I tell him about them (and it's annoying having to do this daily when it's not my job) and coinomat who do absolutely nothing at all and because of his apathy and unwillingness to moderate or police his users they quickly notice they can get away with it spam and copy and pastes and abuse until they're caught but in the meantime the damage is done. We maybe should even look at leaving negative feedback on some of the worst campaigns who do next to zero. I've certainly thought about doing it and maybe that will kick start them into actually doing something but it would likely be a conflict of intetest for me now as I'm offering to run campaigns on their behalf but something really needs to be done especially to those who don't even bother replying to my messages about abusers and continue to pay them. If you don't have the time or patience to look after your campaign then you really need to hire someone who will. I don't think acting on campaign managers would work, they'll just stop posting here, or use anon accounts. While using anon accounts now would be a red flag for a sig campaign, it would eventually become normal and accepted, similar to how it's the norm to see a one post newbie selling a hero account. Something definitely needs to change though, this isn't a problem that can be solved with more moderation. For bans to be effective in countering sig spam, the number of bans would have be much greater than it's ever been. Even during the last "ban wave", some of the borderline users I was watching were saying "Well I might get banned but oh well, gotta get paid". The campaigns may not care that users that have been here for years are being banned, some permanently, but I do. I don't want to see that many people banned, ultimately it's not good for anyone. A sig spam ban that removes their ability to use a signature (and avatar, and personal message) would solve the problem of needing to ban users, but it wouldn't solve the sig spam problem. I still think an ignore signature button (with filtering to filter all signatures of that type) would be the best option, with an autoignore at a certain threshold. See a lot of spammers with a certain signature? Ignore it, and if enough do then that company has essentially had their signatures removed from the forum. |
|
|
|
|
It was 45 days since it's your second ban, and then I noticed your other accounts, changed it to permanent.
You were banned once before, then warned by hilariousandco, and now this.
|
|
|
|
A disturbingly large portion of the posts in those threads are all his accounts. Many thanks to bit-x for their continued contributions to the forum . |
|
|
|
Yes, it was unfortunate. The funds may have never truly been at risk but it was still extortion as you used them as leverage to get the the posts removed.
I had agreed to return the funds to @theymos before I had even realised that the posts had got deleted (I only noticed that after I read @theymos reply to my apology). Even @theymos has stated that their removal had nothing to do with my "stunt" and was just part of normal moderation. Obviously yes, the posts should have been deleted, and that user had already been dealt with before you posted that thread (though those particular posts hadn't been deleted yet). Only reason I held off deleting them after you posted the thread was to give you a chance to rethink your actions, which is also why I responded to your thread so quickly pointing out what you were doing. It was extortion, whether that was your intention or not. It was also very insulting that you think we would value 50 BTC over our integrity (assuming we disagreed about moderation of the posts). It wasn't about the posts, it wasn't about the funds either. It was about you, and the way you conducted yourself wrt your contractual obligations. Also if it would be of any help then I will gladly "refrain from posting again" in any topic other than that of the CIYAM project topic (the work is more important to me than me being able to post elsewhere on this forum).
I'm not sure why you think segregating yourself from the community would help. I may change it to a neutral someday, I don't think a single mistake should haunt you for the rest of your time here, but that day isn't today. |
|
|
|
|
Ban evasion, sig spammer. I don't care about your deleted post, didn't see it.
|
|
|
|
Props for being honest at least, I respect that. Most just play dumb or actively lie about it. But then you continued posting, and are trying to buy another account to continue posting, while being banned. Kind of a wash there. Happy to see someone cares about the forum. Thumbs up BadBear
 Maybe his honesty should be rewarded with a tentative second chance. If he's actually willing to sit out his ban then that is better than 90% of the spammers. Yes this is the sort of person I'm inclined to give second chances to, if they recognize their issues and are honest about it, then they should have no issue fixing said problem. On the other hand, if they refuse to recognize it, or legitimately don't see what they did wrong, then there is little chance they will be able to resolve it. Ps, are you Kirk or McCoy?
It's hard to say I identify with either alone really, they (the trio including spock) are designed to be typical, and later on in the show, extreme versions of their archetypes. Kirk, the hero/warrior. Barges in without second thought and is usually the one to get them in trouble in the first place due to his arrogance. Depends on his intuition and outside the box thinking to find a solution that satisfies everyone. McCoy, the caregiver. Deeply emotional, he cares so much about others, and every individual life that he would do anything to save a single one, no matter the consequences. Spock, the stoic. Cold hearted, logical, always thinks before acting. Separate they are all flawed, but they work together to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. They are the three parts of the human psyche personified ( Id, ego, and super-ego). In a venn diagram of the three, I would probably lean more towards McCoy/Spock. #couchcritics #nerdchat |
|
|
|
|
If you're going to troll nonstop and spam the forum, that's fine, you're just of another one of those people. But don't get mad when you get banned, and yes that includes your new alts.
|
|
|
|
The last part of the message you removed from the quote says "Email acctcomp15@theymos.e4ward.com", did you try that by chance? Most account compromises are the user's fault which is why they are such low priority, these are not (mostly), so they get handled relatively quickly. |
|
|
|
The spam posts are in fact in the off-topic board of the Chinese board, but most signature campaigns supporting local boards also pay for those posts. I personally think that the rules of the signature campaigns is the basic problem. To solve it signature campaigns should deny payment to those post in off-topic boards in all languages.
I'm pretty sure most couldn't care less. |
|
|
|
|
Changed it back and banned it with a message about being compromised.
|
|
|
|
|
It's an SMF bug, and theymos doesn't care enough to fix it, it's not a big deal.
Maybe it should be renamed to DO NOT CLICK and see how many times people click it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
