So you were underaged when you started or why do you refuse to do KYC? Seems so you have something to hide.  Don't we get tired of overused (and incorrect) bullshit cliches? Why would you want others knowing your personal details if you should be able to keep that data to yourself? It's similar to as if you were abruptly stopped in the middle of the street and frisked. Do you comply? If not, you must have something to hide! While you may not have anything shady to hide, you should not subject yourself to seizure of privacy just because of a contrived principle. |
|
|
|
Got something around 200 bad reports because they were duplicates. Caused by my lack of coding expertise when tinkering with the script.  You have reported 11139 posts with 95% accuracy (9393 good, 503 bad, 1243 unhandled). A month ago it was less than 1/10 of those values. Automation is truly a godsend. |
|
|
|
Should we increase our reporting to moderators?  I am thinking not to bother moderators to much, and I often go only with adding Negative Trust for specific user. Sometimes I go with report + negative trust Reports and negative trust should be mutually exclusive for the most part, unless it's to do with ban evasion. Negative trust should not be used for spam. |
|
|
|
Are there any pronouncements you can link to where the exact reasons why are stated?
I was a bit surprised when I ended up in there on joining but I wasn't horrified or devastated. It was a little bit of a grind but eminently escapable. A lot of things look very different now of course but I'd be curious to know how it looks from the staff end. Ask and you shall receive. Limiting newbie participation is very harmful for a community. Newbie jail will never return: I consider the newbie-jail period to have been extremely damaging to the forum. When barriers to participation are too high, then the best people often just won't go to the trouble of joining, and the people who are willing to jump through the hoops are often people who aren't good for the community: people with nothing better to do, scammers, get-rick-quickers, etc. Having a permanent newbie jail policy would improve things a lot in the short-term, but would end up being a fatal poison to the community.
The low signal-to-noise is a real issue which seriously annoys me and is often on my mind. But as you mention, fixing it non-destructively is difficult. |
|
|
|
@suchmoon can I get a list? |
|
|
|
Let me just say, being able to report an entire page at once is amazing. How satisfying it is to see everything grayed out immediately...
Rather than add in buttons, just querySelectorAll("div.post") and immediately report_post with a pre-designated message. This definitely curbs burst-posting spammers, hard. Most users outside of the * discussion boards will never need to see the use of my "MASS SPAM" button. Addendum: increase your promise timeout value if you are reporting a lot of posts. |
|
|
|
-snip- You misunderstand what the intent is. It's similar to a Newbie jail, not a review process for all posts. The latter would be absolutely unsustainable with our current staff.
Against spam attacks and whatnot, I think we still have the freedom to keep to a reactive approach since malicious traffic is not too common. Moreover, the community reaction to such types of attacks is usually quite swift. Once we get truckloads of accounts posting about, we might want to insert a temporary lockdown mechanism, but I don't think theymos wants to go back to a permanent newbie jail. |
|
|
|
I honestly have no idea on how to sign a bitcoin, you can start a trade with me on Paxful or LocalBitcoins with the preferred amount.
How to sign a message?! |
|
|
|
Prove that we are mentally ill. To believe something that is disproven since 3,5 years and never happened indicates the extreme mental illness! marlboroza alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with game-protect is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions.
Support: Foxpup, alexrossi, suchmoon, babo, yahoo62278, LFC_Bitcoin, RHavar, SyGambler, bones261, yogg, nutildah, actmyname, Lutpin, DeathAngel, marlboroza, Lafu, subSTRATA, AdolfinWolf, Hhampuz, crwth, bob123, xtraelv, micgoossens, ryzaadit, o_e_l_e_o, iasenko, pandukelana2712, mu_enrico, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, NeuroticFish, Quickseller, Stedsm, eternalgloom, Joel_Jantsen, legendster, Astargath, arwin100, Initscri, asu, TwitchySeal, Royse777, CASlO, Captain Corporate, Csmiami, dragonvslinux, JSRAW, rhomelmabini, CryptoCheckk, BitMastery, WinRateCasino, IMadeYouReadThis, jimmyhate Right... so what license is your lottery page operating under? After all, that is something that contributes to your riskiness. You've avoided this question many times. Do you have a license or not? Are you hosting a casino that is unlicensed, or will you reveal what license it has? |
|
|
|
You see first they post about gambling issues, then once they didnt had anything they put KYC thing.
I am a user since 2016 and never had anything like that with them in past. But now they do all this. Yeah... not sure what's going on: I've withdrawn far larger amounts without being requested KYC. Like I said, concrete definitions of when KYC is enforced would help. PS: All of the images are already present in first post. Just posted them in image format since it's more accessible than clicking links. If you want to just copy the code onto your first post then I can take my images down. [img]http://i.imgur.com/Bw68iRr.jpg[/img][hr] [img]http://i.imgur.com/jDSzVoJ.jpg[/img][hr] [img]http://i.imgur.com/YE6Ncii.jpg[/img][hr] [img]http://i.imgur.com/gWCZS83.jpg[/img][hr] |
|
|
|
I really hope so, these three days are sad for me. The sad part is once the support staff didn't had anything they put KYC thing. if I had to do KYC, I would not have used cloudbet in first place. I believe it's in their ToS, similar to most gambling sites. It would be better if casinos would put down concrete requirements prior to a deposit but unfortunately that's not the status quo.
Here are your images: 
|
|
|
|
Game Protect who handles claims totaling over USD 7 million it is peanuts! Somehow I doubt that... Maybe you should switch it to "claims handling over 7 million USD" instead |
|
|
|
In the real world you can not sentence someone to lifetime in prison only because not knowing that he killed someone does not exclude it!!! What is your definition of "know"? If we consider it from your analogue of a trial, then that is subjective based on the jurisdiction. Let's assume that it's one that requires evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Then let's take a look at your second remark: In the real world it is also an offense to warn about something you do not know and a public forum is always part of the real world! Do we "know" that you are high-risk, beyond a reasonable doubt? Considering the fact that you are disparaging others from playing at unlicensed casinos and various Curacao license-based casinos, but refuse to identify your own website's license... that seems quite high-risk to me. The trust of who did I breach and how? Only because I create a website claiming that you killed 5 children does not confirm it is true! In the real world you need proof of claims, otherwise you commit offenses. Prove that we are mentally ill. |
|
|
|
Again for mentally handicapped: 1) Believing that anyone dealing with Game Protect is at a high risk of losing money means not knowing! 2) Not knowing that anyone dealing with Game Protect is at a high risk of losing money confirms that this is not the case. Because if it was the case, some bitcointalk accounts surley would know it considering how much effort they have put in within the past 3,5 years to lie about and defame Game Protect! 3) Therefore, (at least based on real world rules and logic) everyone who believes that anyone dealing with Game Protect is at a high risk of losing money confirms that this is not the case!  You believe several users are mentally handicapped. What other beliefs do you not know? Let's see... You do not know if the sun will rise tomorrow. You do not know if any user has proof. You do not know if any individual other than yourself is a figment of your imagination. You do not know if you are arguing against yourself. You do not know if you are schizophrenic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Arguments of semantics lead to mentally-ill retarded arguments. |
|
|
|
To publicly judge someone based on beliefs is a serious violation of human rights! Therefore, you're violating our rights because you're calling all of these users mentally-ill based on their beliefs? Their support of a flag against you? Dig more holes, Columbus. Maybe you'll discover the spices you're hoping to find. |
|
|
|
Does bitcointalk.org use reverse brain logic? If you think the flag is abuse then you should report it to theymos. He will blacklist anyone that is improperly using the flag system. Remember... you're not flagged as a scammer, you're flagged as high-risk. For someone who's so caught-up in semantics when it comes to scams, you appear to be selectively distinguishing certain definitions. |
|
|
|
i hope this doesn't make these two semi clean boards turn into other boards with repeating answers and bad advice. That's not going to happen. If some nutjob spammer tries to rob the forum of its good boards... they will be reported to oblivion. Technical Support does get a bit spammy sometimes, but Technical Discussion is extremely sanitary compared to any other board. |
|
|
|
|
Payment confirmed...
Dear god... incoming horde!
Let's start this application wave with a joke:
Q: If DarkStar_ opened a shop, what would be the name?
A: .DS_STORE
|
|
|
|
Bitcointalk says Insufficient support: https://imgur.com/a/IxU290rSo if marlboroza's belief has insufficient support, how can the flag be active? Welcome to "customizable trust lists". You have changed your trust list from DefaultTrust. Unfortunately for you, 99% of the forum still has a trust list that is only DefaultTrust and a large number of the 1% who have modified their lists have something similar to DefaultTrust. |
|
|
|
|
Constantly saying that you did not scam anyone does not mean that you did not scam anyone.
You pull "no true scotsman" arguments for contradictory evidence and live in your own world of truths and falsities.
You have dedicated an obscene amount of time to leave negative feedback against each of the accounts that have supported the flag against you.
If only there were a term to describe someone like that... maybe we can find such a phrase in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
