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.

People probably shouldn't be linking solely to the posts of the scammer as many would just try get rid of the evidence if they can, but external links could also be manipulated or go down. A simple solution would be to just make sure all the evidence is presented in a scam accusation thread with quotes, screenshots and archives etc. At least all the relevant info can be presented in a readable fashion. Often just linking to an archive doesn't give the whole picture.


Stick the archive link in a scam accusations thread and link to that instead. Problem solved.

I think it's a helpful addition and will help others figure out if they even want to post in there. Could you make another enhancement and give the option to pre-blacklist certain users or even limit who can participate to certain membergroups/ranks.  Most people create a self-mod threads just to keep certain trolls out and they often still annoyingly post in those threads. Banning them from even being able to post in there would probably save people a lot of time and hassle. Limiting the thread to certain ranks would also stop them from coming back on a brand new account or would be helpful when doing giveaways when they're only open to certain ranks.

The trust system is meant to be there as a guide. Most people aren't going to take a feedback that says FUCK YOU or attempts to suck his own dick in bright red caps seriously. Sure, there are certain feedbacks that could or should probably be removed but having mods remove them will likely just lead to more issues and complaints from people why did you remove x but not y etc.


Ones like this though are probably crossing the line and you should probably PM an admin about those (as they are removed in some instances). I think source links should probably have to link to a bitcointalk thread as well because I've seen a few in the past with ref links and other suspicious dodgy sites put there.

mdayonliner, I'm sorry for whatever personal issues you were going through but as others have said posting screenshots (and everything else) of two random people making calls doesn't prove anything and is even more circumstantial than my 'evidence' or claims. In fact, it's less than that because it only holds any weight if we believe your narrative in the first place.


There probably won't ever be one unless some damning evidence comes to light such as linked wallet transactions or some other info so at the moment it's just he said she said and likely will be until the end of time. I'll leave my final 'conclusion' here: I think that regardless of whether these accounts are 'true' alts or not (which we probably won't know unless he admits it) mday has personally made posts for the account in some capacity whether he was/is in control of it or someone else. I really don't buy that he didn't know who the account was until this accusation. It doesn't even make sense and I think he just came out with this to try distance himself from the merit abuse which he obviously would have been found guilty of if he admitted he knew the account. Let's assume the account technically isn't 'his' alt i.e someone else created and controls it, then he probably sent them posts he'd wrote up in an attempt for them to get merit. Before I even knew they were Bangladeshi or had spotted any other similarities I suspected they might be the same just from their posts alone. For that to happen you have to be pretty much trying to purposely emulate someone or it be a massive coincidence. If the account technically isn't his then it's probably his buddies or maybe brothers (and he was well aware of that), but I'm pretty sure some of the content has come from him at some point whether he posted it personally or not. Of course, this is still all speculation and opinion but we're never really going to know one way or another and I suspect mday will stick to his narrative whether it be true or not.

No, and theymos would never do this as he is against restricting people from posting too much. There are so many users and posts and so few merit sources that it won't be uncommon for average posters to go unmerited but that doesn't mean they should be prohibited from posting. You can certainly use their posts to merit ratio as a barometer if you want but that shouldn't restrict them from contributing. What happens if you just make posts in the marketplace trying to sell things but don't really contribute anything elsewhere? That's fine but in your system without merit they would be prohibited from selling here. If someone is truly a terrible poster or even worse being disruptive then they should be dealt in other ways but automatically restricting people isn't a good idea for reasons I've just stated.

It would be a helpful alternative option I think. I've suggested in the past that you should also be able to limit voting to specific rank as well (Ie only Senior Members and above can cast a vote (but you could chose the member group yourself)). In certain issues it would be helpful to exclude lower ranks. It would also limit manipulation and abuse from alts.


Yes. Maybe not general governmental elections but many other voting systems are done so publicly.  Anonymous voting has it's place but so does public voting (and they both have positive and negatives).




They would be free to create their own anonymous poll.


This is generally the issue, but you can set the poll here to see how the voting is going on without casting a vote which can also influence things. If you were going to vote one way but then see the majority are voting another you either might just not bother or vote for the one that is likely to win anyway since you feel your vote may not count.

I wholly agree. The people who are desperate to gain 'trust' here are often going to use it for all the wrong reasons. I never came to this forum thinking I really want to be trusted and I'm sure most other very 'trusted' users here felt the same. Trust and rep is just something you build up naturally over time and should be irrelevant to most people but a lot of people seem to want it ASAP so it'll probably help them financially (whether they're just going to use it to gain an advantage in legitimate business or use the supposed 'trustworthiness' to scam at a certain point). This is partly why I really don't trust op. He seems to really just want a trusted account at whatever the cost. Would he have tried to use that trust to pull some sort of scam at some point ? Who knows, but like I said before, ponzi promoters aren't exactly the most moral of people. 


He doesn't like me for obvious reasons and I think he's just trying to prove a point or make out like I'm being ignorant and blinded to the truth. The irony is he's tried to distance himself from the allegations so much he's just brought more scrutiny onto the accounts and that they are in fact linked (even if it's just on a "friend" level).