I messaged theymos about it but didn't get a response. I even asked if the sig ban feature can be extended to Globals as I would much rather issue them instead of permanent bans, especially in cases like this. I would suggest that ChiBitCTy PM theymos and state his case and maybe a sig ban will be given instead of the perma one. Maybe collecting some vouches from established members on why he should be allowed back would help his case.


It doesn't really matter who "stitched" them up but he has made several comments about the possibility of alternatives to plagiarism in the thread I created about the possibility of them:

Why would a mere signature invalidate someone's opinions in Meta? Probably 95% of my posts on this account are in Meta and the vast majority of merits I've received are also from in here (and I'm one of the highest merited users) (not trying to suck my own cock or anything but the info is relevant to the argument)). I think a lot of people baring a signature actually make great posts (and arguably among their best) in Meta. Having a paid signature is just a bonus to me and I like that I can get paid for my contributions (which I believe to be worthwhile). Sure, you could remove signatures from being displayed here or in any other board if you truly want a non-monetised discussion (and I guess that's what the Ivory Tower etc are for), but why are you making this argument just for this board when the same could be said for any other? As I've always said, the problem here isn't merely having a paid signature; it's the people who make low quality contributions that should be penalised or curbed because it's the low quality posts that are the issue not merely signatures and in my opinion some signature campaigns actually elevate the quality of discussion here. Sure, there are surely some people who would not be making the posts if they weren't getting paid for them, but if the quality of the posts are worthwhile then I don't see the issue and I certainly don't think it's an issue in Meta when we've got spam fests like Bitcoin Discussion where the likelihood of having any sort of decent discussion is next to zero. In fact, Meta is probably one of the only boards where decent discussion can take place and I feel like I don't need to bash my head against the keyboard by what I'm reading.

I never had an animated avatar but I didn't mind them. I don't think they were distracting. Sure, they're more noticeable than others but not glaringly so. In fact, before people started bypassing the gif restrictions I suggested being able to have an animated avatar (and a image banner in signature) as a possible donator perk.


Why? Who wants an avatar that they can't change and is probably irrelevant to them?


Why would this matter? I don't think there should be a distinction on whether it's a monetised one or not. I think the idea is that they're prohibited because they're a distraction.

Bitcoin is bigger than this forum and it has obviously outgrown this place, but it's still an active hub (though arguably probably fuelled more by sign campaigns and ICOs than anything else right now). The video isn't a comprehensive history of bitcoin either. Sure, bitcointalk was there from the beginning and it wouldn't hurt to mention it but it's not something to worry about.

Besides, it's not like the video is wholly factually accurate:



lol


You really think removing these things would make a difference? Merit doesn't stop anyone from posting here but it certainly curbs spammers rising through the ranks, but rank or merit is meaningless really other than those who want to earn from posting here. As for trust I wouldn't be against scrapping the entire thing as people rely on it too much and assume negative or positive feedback from dt is is the be all and all of who is trustworthy or not.

What a bullshit statement. Nobody can remember every single post they've ever made and in what thread they made it, nor should someone have to go looking through their post history to try work it out. Somebody could delete a post that you made years ago and for whatever reason they want if it's in a self-modded thread. If it's in an old thread then you're less likely to remember where you posted it. Having a link to the actual thread it was removed from would be very helpful and also likely easy to implement and numerous people have suggested this in the past so it's clearly something people would like.


This is different. He's not asking why it was deleted or complaining about it, but asking for a a feature that indicates what thread the post was removed from.

We already know the answers to these questions. When you have campaigns that will pay for any generic spam then users will continue to make them and over multiple accounts. People aren't going to waste time writing a paragraph when they don't need to. Write a generic sentence then move on to another thread or account. The only way you'll stop this is either by removing signatures or making sure campaign managers do their job properly. 



He hasn't been a moderator for quite some time. Theymos just hasn't removed his name from there. Being a moderator here doesn't mean you get paid every month regardless of work you put in. If you do nothing then you'll get nothing. If you do a little you'll get a little.

Yes, because why wouldn't any sane person do this? Back up anything important. If you want a draft then save a draft. Any author would have multiple drafts of something they're working on. Is that so hard to comprehend? You're expecting a forum software to do all this for you because you're too lazy or incompetent to simply save this data in a notepad or word processor because of some ludicrous reasons.


It's called incompetence (or trolling). I'm not sure how copy and pasting text into something other than this forum is distracting or loses a 'theme'. He could write his posts on this forum all day long if he insists. Just make sure you copy and save them somewhere else so you don't run into this stupid problem he has.

Multiple Lols. The only person who is making a fool of himself is the guy who stupidly lost content. Word isn't good enough for you but losing posts is? Fine. Have it your way. Content gone. All this could have been simply avoided but you think this forum owes you a bespoke drafting feature. It doesn't. You lost content because of your own naivety and foolishness. Posting that content in a word document or notepad would have solved all your problems but apparently writing or copy and pasting into something other than this forum is too much work and wholly unacceptable. Well great job, you lost your stuff and it doesn't look like you'll learn your lesson. Meanwhile, I'll keep anything important that I may need in a notepad or word document like I have been doing for years and I've never had these issues. Seriously, you need to get over yourself and your refusal to use anything else to make sure your content is safe and saved elsewhere otherwise you only have yourself to blame.

Oh do shut up and get off your high horse. This has absolutely nothing to do with creativity or understanding it. I honestly don't know whether you're trolling now because I'm struggling to accept you can be so stupid (especially to someone who cares so much about their "creativity" and writing). You are completely reckless if you solely rely on a web forum to preserve your precious writings for all of eternity. Do authors and noble poets write their masterpieces on web forums and rely on the draft feature to archive them? No. They use a computer. Or paper. And I'm guessing both parties are not dumb enough to only have one copy in existence. And if they do and they get stolen or their house burns down then they're at fault. Back up your shit. Back up your writings, back up your bitcoins, back up your mp3s and for god's sake certainly back up your porn.


I don't care how many posts you've written. Your carelessness has now costs you. You might be able to fuck ten thousand people without a condom and never catch an STD. Until you do. You just screwed up. Protect your shit.

Anyway, it's your own damn fault you lost your posts and use a word processor in the future. Or don't. But don't complain when your content goes bye-bye because you're the only one at fault.

Well it may or may not be your style but your style has quite clearly cost you in this instance so I think you should look at adapting your stance. Some people like to live recklessly and sometimes they pay the ultimate price for that behaviour (or lack of precaution). The draft feature is there just as a temporary courtesy and not an indefinite archive. It didn't even use to exist a while ago until theymos implemented it, but was added as a helpful feature so we have at least some sort of back up when drafting or submitting a post (sometimes posts didn't go through and we lost them completely before), but it really shouldn't be relied upon as an extensive history of every draft you might make, and again, you really should have back ups if it's important. If you must write the thing on here then save it in a word processor after just in case, but if that's still just not your style then you may run into these issues again. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

The only thing that is naive here is you relying on the forum to be a permanent archive of your various writings.


If you're serious about writing anything then you shouldn't be relying on the forum to save all your work for you, especially not ones 'in progress' and being constantly revised. Use a word processor like everyone else then preview it here to see how it looks. You should always have back ups of anything digital that is important and this is nobody else's fault other than your own.

It was a part of the original or apart from it and in another thread? Can you post here exactly what posts you originally made and what they were supposedly edited to because I'm still confused as to what has happened. Staff can edit posts, but are you saying that a staff member must have edited your entire post then deleted it but the only bit that remained of your original was "I'm curious to see..." (but there was much more originally). So to get this straight, you had a big post, a staff member edited it so the only bit that remained was "I'm curious to see..." and then deleted it. Are you really sure that you're just not mistaken and that "I'm curious to see..." was posted after the op and not in the same thread?

I am an alt of a staff member. See my trust. Nobody other than the person who removed it can tell you for sure why it was removed and I'm still even confused as to what the problem is here because what do you mean it was at the bottom of the post? It can't have been. Staff can't take bits of your post and remove that bit and you get a notification about it. They can remove the post and that post that is removed looks pointless or probably breaks one of the other rules, but until you clarify I can't help you.

Where was the "I'm curious to see what people think about this" posted? Are you saying that little bit was removed from a bigger post, or that post was removed from one of your threads?

Was that post removed from this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100034.msg49337995#msg49337995

Just this:



As above, I think the policy should stay the same right now because certain mods giving certain people free passes isn't fair and will only lead to more issues and hassle. I guess you can try petition the other Globals/admins as they may have a different opinion, but certain staff showing leniency is just opening up a huge can of worms to me and if you unban one hundreds will start pestering you, but they can obviously feel different. Hopefully signature bans will come into play at some point and I would happily issue them and maybe even consider reinstating the signature if they've proven over time that they're here to contribute. Maybe signature campaigns will be banned in the near future and then maybe we can unban everyone who was ever banned for sig spam and they can choose to contribute or not.

ChiBitCTy along with Roboabhishek were the two users I suggested for a sig ban:

Appeal threads:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3432369.msg35819856#msg35819856
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5079217.msg48408455#msg48408455

I'm not sure I buy either of their excuses (though they are plausible) but I'd be willing to give them a second chance as they were both active and somewhat appreciated members and have vouches from other respected members, but I think some sort of sig ban would be appropriate here given they were both essentially doing it for payment. They both seem to care more about just getting their accounts back and even suggested they're fine with a sig ban so I think this is something we should consider:

Read the replies. Many possibilities have been given. If the post contained a link at the bottom then the thread was possibly considered advertising spam. I don't care if you write a thesis, if you've only posted it to put your link there then it's probably an advert in my opinion.


It can't have been in the original post. Staff can't snip a bit out and then delete it and you get a notification about it. In the screenshot you provided it's just the "I'm curious to see..." part that has been deleted:


Therefore, if you posted it straight after the op then it was likely either considered a bump within 24 hours or unnecessary. You don't need to write a post then immediately ask what people think about it. It's both pointless, a consecutive post and a bump*, all of which are against the rules (*if it was made within 24 hours of the last post). I'm not sure what more you want from this. Just take everybody else's advice and move on. Nothing seems to be out of the ordinary here.

Then if it was posted directly after the op then it was probably removed for either being a consecutive post, an illegal bump, or just pointless/unnecessary.


It's wholly relevant. Then what if that person goes one mile over the allowed margin of error? Instant ticket with absolute no chance of getting out of it? What about the sport example? One referee (or moderator) may think something is ok whilst another may not. Whether something is a foul in a sport or not is down to the referee. Some are clear cut and other's aren't. From one angle something may look like a foul but not from another. Spectators sometimes have a better or worse angle than the referee and as such may also disagree. Mods are people and not a connected hive mind and enforce the rules as best they can. Sometimes they make mistakes and sometimes people don't like it, but that's life.

Anyway, regardless of any analogies (relevant or not), your post was probably removed for one of the reasons I stated above so it's best to read the rules to make sure this doesn't happen again.

This still isn't proof of anything and you're attacking a connection someone else made to tie other accounts together. You're complaining at me for not having concrete proof but are just making even lesser claims about other things.


Because that's what I still believe is likely the case. Would you like me to change it to "[I believe] S_Therapist = mdayonliner"? The only thing that is laugh out loud about this is you trying to convince everyone you had absolutely no idea who the S_Therapist account was which is utter bullshit.

You're still forgetting the fact that 4 different people independently had a very good suspicion that you two might be the same just going by the way you type and act. What are the chances of that. Out of the thousands of users here we make the connection and then it actually turns out you know each other in real life. Out of the 7.5 billion people on earth we spotted two on a forum that know each other in real life but only that comes to light when they're accused of being the same. What are the odds!? Astronomical. You're either very likely the same person or you've written posts for or under that account, but this is obviously something you'll never admit to so you'll cling to that uncertainty for dear life. The whole I didn't know who the account was is preposterous. You have a friend here and he knows your account but for some reason you don't know his and never thought to ask. Come the fuck on. Stop taking people for idiots. We can spot your "friend" but you can't? You lied so much to try get away from the merit abuse that it just took you down a a huge hole of desperation you had to try claw your way back out from but that's all you've got to run with now.


I think this is plausible (and that they've likely shared accounts or mday made content for him to post (and merit), but they're never going to admit to this now as they've come out with their story and are going to have to stick to it. One of them even referred to the other account as 'brother' recently but I can't find it now. Was something along the lines of "thank you, brother", but of course it could have been used in a friendly way and not literally.

Why have you snipped this bit out? Was that in the original post or another post added right after it? If so, then that's why. If it contained the advertising link as suggested above then that's probably why.


Any person who is tasked with enforcing laws or rules does so from a subjective interpretation. How many times do fans and referees disagree on whether something was a foul or not? Some referees would have given the foul whilst some wouldn't. Rules are there as a guide and moderators enforce them as they see fit and as best they can. Sometimes leeway should be allowed. Would you prefer it if a cop gave you a speeding ticket for going one mile over the speed limit? I mean, if we're going by strict rules then you deserve the ticket. Or he could let you off. Same applies here. Not everything is always black and white. Some mods may disagree on something whilst others may agree.

Went for a risky 1-1 on the Fulham Spurs game and then Spurs went and got the winner in injury time to screw me over  . I was the only one who went for the draw and then even worse the usual suspects get the full three points putting them further in front. Looks like  it's going to be impossible for mid-table users like me to catch up to get into the top five now unless they start to consistently screw up and others do extremely well. I guess all we can hope for it to get some top scores from the rounds in the hope of a consolation prize. Won't be much of a consolation though the amount bitcoin has dropped since we started.

Either just ban them outright or tighten the restrictions on how they can operate here and give punishments for those who can't run them efficiently. Problem solved either way. I'm not sure why you would waste time with the update thing though. People shouldn't be having their signature possibly modified without their consent and that would just open up a potential huge security concern (if I've understood is properly). All campaigns need to do is clean up their act and the only thing the forum needs to get involved with is warning and punishing those that don't.

Ask yourself this: Do you ever see any shitposts from the Chipmixer campaign? Nope. Why? Because they've got a manager who does his job properly and how it should be done. And then we've got all the shitcoin campaigns who do absolutely nothing and it's them that have ruined it for everyone else. If signature campaigns were banned then all the problem users and campaigns would leave instantly never to return thus leaving all the quality posters who would stick around out of pocket and having the bonus of getting paid for their quality contributions taken away. It just seems like the worst of the community will have ruined a good thing for everyone else. Take a look at the highest merited users of all time. If you take you (theymos) and satoshi out of the equation then in the top ten highest merited users of the forum 5 of them are wearing a Chipmixer signature. That should tell you a lot. Chipmixer is pretty much the only campaign known for it's quality participants. Now, imagine if all campaigns were run like this and all campaigns were known for their quality posters (and the ones that weren't were handed punishments). There would be no issue with signatures at all then. I've said multiple times before over the years that signature campaigns could actually help improve the quality of the forum and Chipmixer is proof of that, but when we allow users and campaigns to pay people just for bashing their head against a keyboard what do you think is going to happen?

It's not just about signature campaigners being out of pocket and restricted either. There's lots of people who conduct business here and use their signature to advertise their own goods and services and they'd also be screwed and lose out (unless there was some sort of whitelist for certain users).


This should have been done long ago and it looked like some progress was being made when I finally got theymos to agree to the Guidelines, but then nothing happened and all requests for blacklists were ignored. If theymos doesn't have time to issue sig blacklists then I think he should probably code an interface instead that would allow Globals to be able to do so (or a special team of sig campaign mods or whatever).


No. I gave a few warnings out initially but most just ignored it completely and when I requested certain campaigns signatures to be blacklisted nothing happened. It really won't work without theymos' input otherwise they're just hollow threats and with bans they can just run campaigns off site. If it became public knowledge that we don't tolerate lazy campaigns most will just clean their acts up in the first place so warnings, bans and blacklists will probably have to be issued less and less as time goes on.


I wouldn't be against only using some sort of team of 'trusted' managers. The only issue is how do new users get on there and how do we divide work between them? Some new managers do actually do their job properly but the overwhelming majority don't. Most new campaign managers are just completely oblivious to how the forum operates or how much work managing a campaign is and that is a huge issue. At least if there's a trusted team of known users then they will know what to do and the standards to keep. I think I suggested before you could make the 'trusted' sig managers mods or some sort of staff rank and only those users are allowed to run them. At least we could guarantee some quality control then.


That's why we need signature blacklists otherwise this wouldn't work.