I've got five draws currently  . Really unsure of them though. Draws are usually the best to go for if you can't split the teams but they all won't end up like that or could be some upsets. Hopefully I'll get at least one or two right though to cover the potential loss from others. The good thing about going for draws is usually others don't tend to go for them because it's usually easier to pick a winner or go with the favourite no matter how close the odds are.


Leicester and Wolves maybe but not sure about Palace. With that being said they beat United at old Trafford and Spurs got beat by Newcastle last month so who knows.

A gamble on this game wouldn't be a bad call. I could actually see a 2-1 to Leicester, especially given United recent form, but maybe the draw would be the better choice. Or United could just surprise us all and storm them.


I've gone for 3. Not sure if I'd go any higher. Don't forget that Newcastle beat Spurs away last week so the game could be closer than we think. I don't think Liverpool will blow this though.

Reminder that examplens, LTU_btc, BitSat still need to put their scores in.

I really don't think theymos would implement something like this. It's too open to abuse.


Yeah, I really wasn't a fan of this, though it was at least some barometer for trolls, but it was also abused or could give the wrong impression. Back in the day people used to use the ignore button if they didn't like what you were saying or just because you were on a signature campaign and they'd be open about telling you that. People shouldn't be lit up like trolls just because someone doesn't like what you're saying. How many of us would be marked as trolls just because there's certain people who don't like you or have a few alts they can do the same on just to try impact you negatively. By all means, use the ignore button if you don't want to see what certain people are saying but that shouldn't effect how others perceive you.

Sane person:

homophobia: bad
racism: equally as bad

Insane person:

homophobia + violence: bad
'racist' joke account + signature campaign: worst crime on the forum.


Exactly, but that would defeat the entire purpose of him making these threads in the first place. He does them for attention, so if theymos ignores his PM, which he likely will, then he's just screaming into the void.  

It will be close. I was thinking about a draw but I think United should win it, but I'd like to see Leicester do well again and challenge for the league. They're in third place right now so who knows. Doubt we'll ever see anything like that again but I think that season of the PL was the most exciting in the last ten years. I have United to win on my accumulator though so would rather they win but I'd be happy with a Leicester win as it's always nice to see United lose especially at home.

I've gone for a lot of draws this week but I might change some. Brighton/Burnley, Sheff/Southampton, Wolves/Chelsea, Bournemouth/Everton, Watford/Arsenal & Villa/West Ham are all hard to call.

It doesn't matter what it's "famous" for. It famous for spam and discussion that is irrelevant and off topic for there in my opinion. And you can rename it whatever you want but if people are merely just discussing sports in there without any relevance to gambling then it has absolutely no reason to be in Gambling Discussion. If people start talking about films in there then we shouldn't be renaming the board to Films/Sport/Gambling Discussion just because its possible that you can bet on films in some capacity.

Admittedly it's probably only a small percentage but only a small percentage are probably appealing, especially with older cases.


Well yeah, usually is the key word here.


These things have to be taken on a case by case basis as for the reasons malevolent said. We really can't be unbanning certain malicious users just because x amount of time has expired. Sure, some people could or should appeal certain things especially if x amount of time has past and they can make a case that they've changed or would be an asset to the community but again, these will all have to be looked at individually.

Well at least he was man enough to apologise so I'll give him that. The censorship argument though is still biased and based on victim mentality. It's like how people complain here that they'e being censored because they've had their ref link or undeleted bump removed. They just take it personally and are not willing to see it from the other side. Bitcoin Cash isn't being censored here, or it if is I never got the memo. Just all talk of it is moved to the alt coin section because that's what theymos and many others believe it to be. He obviously doesn't but it's also obviously not the original bitcoin as much as Ver claims it to be in the original vision of.

This sort of pettiness can make intelligent people look like children. When somebody feels wronged by something its very easy for them to think they're being victimised and look towards a conspiracy when in reality the truth is far more logical. If he took a minute to even think about this or do some research he would likely realise that there's likely nothing to complain about but that doesn't suit his agenda, and that's what conspiracy theorists do. They're not really interested in facts or doing any actual research just anything that might tenuously support their beliefs or victim-hood. He obviously flew off the handle and just sees this as another way to have a whinge about someone who he feels has it out for him but the truth isn't sexy and wouldn't do anything for him so it's irrelevant.

I would disagree. I think they should be allowed to moderate their own threads as they see fit, even if that can lead to abuse, but if that happens people are within their rights to complain about it or start their own thread to discuss the abuse. Personally, I would much rather have coins moderate their own threads rather than rely on mods to do that for them. Self-moderating does come in handy when you're being attacked by trolls or spammers and sometimes people may not be breaking the forum rules by doing so so it's better not to rely on staff to clean up their problems (and they wouldn't get involved if it doesn't break the rules).

It wasn't made for signature campaigns, but rather as a consequence of them.


It can be lively in off topic or a sub board of it, but this is still irrelevant. Some people bet on the weather but you shouldn't be merely discussing whether it's sunny or raining or not in there. It's like saying discussing Nike shoes belongs in Gambling because an athlete might wear Nike footwear. If it's not directly about gambling then it's just sports discussion and that's off topic.


Why would it not be fair? Why does it matter whether the topics are in Gambling or Off Topic? It doesn't. The only thing it would effect was being able to get paid for posting in them if the campaign they're in doesn't pay for posts in Off Topic and that seems to be the whole crux of the issue. There being other spam threads in Gambling is irrelevant. There's just as much spam threads going on in the various sports discussion threads at the end of the day. You get hundreds of people writing generic lazy stuff or talking about things they have little to no interest in. I even remember someone creating a thread for some sort of women's sports tournament and in it they even alluded to the fact that they're not interested or know anything about it. That was clearly another thread made just to post results or whatnot because it's an easy way to rack up your sig posting quota.

The deadlines are also different around the world. There's usually no statue of limitations of serious crimes like murder either. Obviously breaking a forum rule isn't as serious as murder but as others have said, where do you draw the line? We recently started unbanning people for cases of plagiarism if it wasn't systematic and they're judged to be a net positive to the forum so it's usually not a death sentence now anyway.

How would you really police this effectively though? Do you think it should be made a forum rule or just an unwritten one? Should we prohibit old posts from even being allowed to be reported in the first place by removing the report button for posts that are x amount of time old? Then what happens when there is something that should be removed like doxxing or whatnot? I agree that half of the time very old posts aren't important (especially when people are seemingly going out of their way to find minor infractions) but the only way I can think of is to make it known that it's unnecessary to report certain things, especially if they're historic cases (and for minor violations). Probably wont stop people from reporting them though. Probably bigger things to worry about as well really.

Well the report badges may never come and certainly aren't a priority for theymos right now. People might also be reporting them just to bump up their report count for potential mod positions, but it's rare these days that mods are made on mere high volume of reports. Bump reports are low priority and don't really matter that much, especially when they're buried in old threads but that isn't going to stop people reporting them. I've suggested before that we have maybe two report queues or reports are sorted into priorities as low-priority reports often flood the more serious ones and can quickly bury them. Maybe if we had some sort of drop-down menu where reporters could choose the reason would help and that sorts them by severity/urgency automatically (for instance malware would be high priority and undeleted bumps would be low. High priority could go into a different queue entirely or low priority ones are just pushed to the bottom instead of ordered by the date they come in).


Yeah, they're a minor annoyance, but they are against the rules so people will still report them and quite rightly. I think some users are probably using bots to report them as well. I just wish people would get used to removing them themselves and most will once they're made aware of that but there's obviously a lot of historical cases that can easily rack up your report score.

What did they make the basis of the case that he actually owned bitcoins at that point? Just his word?


So basically all he's done is claim he has x amount and provided the public address of such which anyone could do, but no actual proof of him ever actually owning or having access to them and them being in a trust is the excuse as to why he can't? Is there a list of addresses he's publicly claimed to have owned?

It's not gambling if there's no money at stake and that's the key issue you're missing. They're just taking about sports. Talking about sports isn't gambling, so technically it shouldn't be in a sub board of Gambling. If you stake money on something then it belongs in there but mere discussion of it isn't.


Well the point is is that they're not gambling related and are more fitted to belonging in off topic or even their own sub in there. Merely discussing sports isn't gambling. Its the same as discussing films or what potential films are going to be made and who's going to be cast in them. That would be discussion that belongs in Off Topic. If you were betting money on when or if the films were going to come out and who might be potentially cast then that would be different matter but that's not what's going on in the majority of sports threads.


I think the issues is that most of the content/threads is off topic, specifically if there's no gambling going on. It's just sports talk otherwise. Maybe Sports Discussion should be it's own board as that's essentially what most of it is and if so then it would belong in Off Topic.

Craig Wright is a habitual liar and fraudster. He probably doesn't have anywhere near that amount of bitcoins if many at all and his claims of having them or at the very least so many were just to try bolster his obviously fraudulent claim of being Satoshi, because it's widely assumed he holds them. If he did have as many as he claims and from such an early time period he could have easily proven such and also that he was satoshi or at the very least a very early adopter by singing a message from some of the addresses he owns. He admitted he can't do that and came up with some bullshit excuse about this trust to try weasel out of proving it. So, sorry to say but the Kleiman's are probably entitled to 50% of nothing and even if he does hold substantial holdings he isn't ever going to hand them over and will come out with whatever BS to prevent that, but my guess is he just doesn't have them in the first place (or anywhere near as many as he claims) and the Kleiman's only went after him because of the lies he told about having them or being satoshi.

Yeah, I wouldn't put money on those sort of odds but just see it as a free lottery. Your odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, but people do win it and as they say you've got to be in it to win it. It's not like you have to do anything extra anyway and it's just there in the background. Would be cool if someone from here won something though. You never know, someone might get lucky. I wouldn't even think about it though and just concentrate on doing your best in the pool. It's why it's worth taking the risk with some picks though as there's always going to be some upset or crazy score nobody sees or predicts but that's half the fun.

Those are the prizes from the previous pool. I'll update them later.

Yes. Why wouldn't you? Though the odds of winning one of the cash prizes are astronomical, especially when you consider only one person from the entire site can win each so even if you managed to get the correct scores right if someone else did and they have more points than you overall then they will win. Pretty shitty but I guess they can't afford to send prizes out to everyone who gets them right.