Much like me, lol. Good idea putting it out there as a potential feature in Meta, I hadn't considered doing that.

I know when I've added people to my list I found it difficult at first trying to spell/add them properly. I haven't really checked out to many peoples lists to see if they've made the mistake. I'd probably only notice it if I saw a weird trust rating or something along those lines. 

It would be nice to see a "button" under a users profile to add them to your trust list, followed by a pop-up explaining what you are doing/ are you sure.

I chose this morning to leave negative feedback until this is resolved. I am still hoping for an amicable end to this and am willing to adjust feedback accordingly, if auction terms can be met.

The reason I chose to push this, is I noticed that they have logged in and posted in another section of the forum, without responding to valid concerns with this auction.

Here is the post from this morning. If deleted it can still be seen they logged in under their profile. Edit: To clarify I removed nested quotes from the post.

I read down a little more as I remembered the thread it appears it was a youtube comment.

I removed some of the irrelevant parts from both quotes below.

---

Thanks for that.

Sorry about misunderstanding the policy in place and how it is applied, I appreciate the clarification. I took your advice and created a topic regarding the user in question it can be seen here.

This user Norm Macdonald to the best of my knowledge has been banned for Plagiarism.

I believe it was for this post/topic. It has been understandably edited to remove the plagiarized content, so I can't be positive. I believe the copied content was somewhere along the lines of what the company was claiming their machine can do. I had minimal interaction with the user but I believe they generally were just trying top spread knowledge and participate in the mining section. From looking at their profile I do see they still log in and look around I imagine.

I can't be sure but I don't believe they ever wore a Sig or earned anything by posting here. I obviously don't have any behind the scenes info, and might be missing something.

I made this thread based on this suggestion.

Hey Loyce, you may have to change the title to please - place appropriate ban or something.

It appears we have entered a new era where there is a sliding scale of punishment based on moderator/Admin discretion. Just saw a case where they received a 30 day ban, and a 2 year ban on wearing a Signature. Seems like a step in the right direction to me.

Edit: Was wrong it's not a policy change my mistake

Yeah it was only the larger coupons that went to some of their preferred larger clientele I imagine. So the 395$ as opposed to the 340$, and the 300$ as opposed to the 250$

I haven't talked to anyone who held those coupons so I can't be sure when or how they were distributed, but apparently they were usable at any time.

Good catch Sir millionaire.

I think this is a welcome change to most, I recall theymos discussing wanting to be less rigid and treat it this way. With the Sig ban for 2 years we'll definitely find out why people were here in the first place.
Now some can actually salvage their account, and stick around long enough to learn from their mistakes and hopefully contribute to the forum as a whole.

I wonder if there will be a place for people to recommend a member be reinstated. I can think of 1 account in Mining that I believe was banned under the old way of things.

[WTS] Posting guidelines for physical goods

This here is a good place to start, the biggest things are to show proof of ownership, and then focus on payments accepted and if your willing to use forum trusted escrow (that's the norm around here)

Those points surprisingly aren't your biggest issue with the listing, they normally are as many scammers try and skirt the issue to find a sucker. Looking at community standards on this board there is no "expectation" that the item has to be sold once listed, even if you say OBO, you can still turn down any offer. Just don't renege on a deal that you've agreed to. This changes if you say host an auction, I feel anyone starting these is making an implied contract to sell, if the minimums are met.

buckrogers laid things out really well, and followed up with a great response. Your running into a pricing issue. It's rare especially in this market to find anyone paying inflated costs, or give an honest second look at an overpriced add. Now again you are allowed to price your item how you see fit, but I would take the previous advice and really consider what you deem fair and reasonable and list there. You can pick a bottom line and say firm on price. The other option is using a different venue for your sale.

Good luck, and well done trying to learn how things are done here.

You are going to want to create a thread here Marketplace -> Services This could be a small topic to advertise linking to your [Ann] should you create one.

You could also create an [ANN] in Marketplace -> Service Announcements to highlight all of your offered services or past projects.

be sure to read through the suggestions in this post to familiarize yourself with the rules.

For both of these instances you've provided they deserve "Scammer" or the current warning, as it was a committed act. As techshare pointed out you do have the 3rd option already created, it just goes unused in a large amount of cases because it isn't as visible, and sometimes the feedback left is meant to hurt/punish more than warn others.

"Neutral" if displayed in the same fashion as positive and negative as a tally in the profile information. Ideally people could be persuaded to use this as their "Warning" or "Take Note" feedbacks regarding users. Encouraging the use of this system, a user who may have fallen into your example under "warning", could gt their red trust removed if they redeem themselves in the eyes of the whoever left the feedback.

Instead of having hard and fast rules we need people who can be flexible in the degree of feedback left to different situations, and apply the same reasoning consistently. I have noticed some newer DT members that do ask community advice on tags they've left or are considering leaving. Some are receptive to advice, some have made there minds up already and are looking for reassurance. Either way with this much further reaching DT network, we should ideally be able to get some diluted form of community consensus on most issues. Not everybody will be happy ever, but if we are at least willing to consider the other side of things we could see this system actually work. I think this can be done using minimal direction from the top; if people actively try and think about: Why they are leaving the rating? Is it supported? (reference) Is the information accurate How will this help the reader?

That makes sense. I figured they had to be out there, as they were mentioned on the site, just didn't know anyone who had them.

I have the same batch as most that become valid on the 26th (340/250/160).

Well it appears the S15 is currently sold out, so that may not be an option for anyone wanting to use those coupons on the 26th.

I do see the T15 is still in stock, and is the cheaper option per TH with the 250$ coupon. (compared to the M10 @799 with coupon)

Edit: Cheaper with any coupon 120 or larger.

Here is the original thread for the merit announcement.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.0

Your question was asked a lot in that thread, so give it a read and you'll get a feel for what to expect.

Yeah communication has become spotty at best. I can say that killyou72 has been online at least twice since minerjones made his comment on the 15th. Once 12 hours later and then again on the 21st of February, as noticed when checking their profile.

The last communication I received from them was on Feb 7, when I inquired about the expected date of delivery/shipping details. The information that was relayed was that they had become busy, and that "mj" was going to reship for them. I then reached out to minerjones to first see if they were the referenced "mj" on the 14th, minerjones was unaware of any arrangment being made, and that brings us to the last week.


I just wanted to keep all interested parties in the loop here. I understand life can get in the way so I'm holding off on any judgement for the time being. Mostly because this isn't time sensitive, it's just inconvenient to wait and be out of the loop information wise.

Hoping we can get some info soon.

What a pleasant surprise to wake up to this morning, kinda feels like the beginning of the month again.
How come nobody's complaining it was such a short wait, Block was nearly 6 days early really throws off my whole weekend.  

It can be fairly confusing, especially because it's so fluid now under the new system. Odds are you didn't do anything to them, or there would/should have been feedback left.

They may have disagreed with some of the people that you have as trusted. Never know for sure unless they divulge the reasons. They may just be intimidated by your sweet hat.

I'd be interested to know if the Value of loss was based on it's going rate at the time, or when the stats were being gathered. If it's at the time then 2018 being 50% more than all other years combined makes sense.

Sadly we are already on an early start for Jan/Feb, with QuadrigaCX. Probably be a few years before anyone can put an exact number on it.

Well can't blame you for stepping back, I know I wouldn't play around with visa's.

Side note Main point, if I'm not mistaken all of your threads are back in the hardware section. I checked the S9 and a couple of others, I don't know when exactly as I never thought before now to try without there having been a response here.

See you around