lolwut? Not sure why they're firing people because they should be hiring if anything, especially in their Customer Service department. I even applied for a position that was advertised on their site under the 'careers' department but didn't hear anything back (which isn't surprising). I use Coinbase regularly as I like how swift it is to sell coins, but getting set up and my bank verified took ages and I didn't get any replies from their support for many months. They didn't reply at all to my first few messages and my money was stuck there because I couldn't withdraw even though I'd verified my account but their auto-approval system just didn't work and customer support wouldn't reply.

They're still looking for plenty of positions it seems: https://www.coinbase.com/careers

Sometimes people's goal is just to make money in any which way they can. I think his ponzi past it's relevant because there's usually a certain type of people who get involved with them - get rich schemers who don't really care how or why they get their money as long as it enriches them. Of course, many of them probably know what they're getting into and accept the risks, but if you're ok with making money from ponzis where you know someone is going to end up out of pocket it's not a big step to taking money that doesn't belong to you when you get the chance, especially when it's a huge amount and running off with it would likely have no repercussions legally. As with mdayonliner we will never know whether he would have or not, but the risk for me is too big to ignore unluckily for him. I never really trust anyone who offers to hold onto other's money when they're not qualified to and more often than not it does go sour when they do and that's why this is such a big issue that makes me intrinsically distrust people when they do it.

Nobody is going to do this and you've already stated why. Accounts that are known to have traded hands will almost certainly be tagged and that's why the deals are done behind closed doors and this isn't something theymos could or will enforce anyway. Accounts will always be sold here whether we ban them or not, but the best we can do is look at ways at curbing the behaviour and I think letting users purchase more donator ranks like Silver and Gold with the benefits of higher ranks is the way to go. It would pretty much kill account sales because most people aren't going to take the risk of being scammed and all they want the accounts for in the first place is for a larger signature anyway.


As I said before, it would just be better to amend the way people are banned and state the reason then 99% of people probably won't bother asking why because they'll already know. We'll still get the occasional protester asking for leniency but there's nothing we can do about that.

Had 4-0 so was annoyed at that Cardiff consolation goal. I see only one user got that score right. Good pick.


Had 2-1 to Arsenal as well then Palace went and equalised late on. So close on quite a few games this week but got minimal points.

Spurs/City will probably be very close tonight but I think City will grab the win. The pitch is apparently in a pretty bad state as expected after the NFL game, so that might effect play: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/10/29/wembley-pitch-left-dire-state-tottenham-vs-manchester-city/

I'll be watching it anyway.

Most people will just evade their bans. There's absolutely no checks from the admins whatsoever, even when we find 100 accounts and ban them all manually they could be evading on 200 more for all we know. You could even just create another one from the very same IP, pay the fee (if there is one) and you're good to go again. You'll only ever be punished for ban evading if you slip up and publicly link the accounts somehow and then you'll likely get red-tagged by the community, but any other accounts they may have that we don't know about are still free to roam around. And the only people who know what they're banned for are temp banned users as the reason is always given. 99% of permabanned users have no reason stated on their ban hence why they're confused and ask here.

I think this is a good idea and I've suggested something similar before, but with warnings for people not to post threads in the wrong subs. For instance a warning like Posts about the discussion of Bitcoin's value do not belong here but in Speculation in Bitcoin Discussion, and in Press: This board is for news about Bitcoin only - Do not post alt coin articles in here etc. Would help cut down on a lot of needless time wasted from staff having to move threads that shouldn't be posted there in the first place.


I really don't think this is something theymos would go for as he doesn't want to limit people's ability to post here which this does. All it would do is put off genuine users whilst the people who came here to abuse the forum would just grin and bear it.

Or how about the helicopter just malfunctioned and crashed? What's suspicious about it? Helicopter crashes aren't uncommon. If you want to kill someone there are easier ways than to somehow sabotage a helicopter and go undetected. There'll be a thorough investigation into what happened anyway to determine why it happened and what caused it. Why do people always dream up conspiracies for everything especially when the most logical explanation is often the reality of the situation?


Had no bets on it but had 2-1 to Arsenal on the predictor so annoyed at that late Palace goal.


I could see a draw but I'm still backing City today.

Well I think all alt accounts such have 'etc' in theirs. Jetetc. or Jet Etc  . I don't think theymos would ever implement guidelines on naming rules and people should be able to name them whatever they want. hilarious2, hilarious_away, or whatever (I tied registering hilariousandcrow once but it wouldn't let me ). Also wanted just 'hilarious' but that was taken so had to go with 'hilarious*', but remember, not everyone wants their accounts publicly known. Maybe if you ask theymos he would change your name for you as they do sometimes change them in some circumstances but it's probably not a big issue.

Theymos probably won't change his mind on the issue, but he usually lets the community decide on what is and what isn't trustworthy behaviour and people are free to leave feedback for whatever they think is scammy behaviour. I think the official reasoning why we allow it is that we can't stop it or enforce it efficiently therefore it's allowed. I think in the past theymos has said he doesn't mind or thinks it's okay if people can make money off their old account or something and I've gone through a few opinions on account sales. When I first came here I was against them and was very surprised that they were allowed. Then I kind of warmed to it and thought that it wasn't that bad of an idea or big of a deal and was just another way people could make money here. But then over the years things got exponentially worse with sig spam and the account selling market became more shady and spammy. Accounts became big business and people were farming them in the worst possible ways by shitposting and botting and then of course because accounts had great value hackings became rife. Now I just think they cause more hassle than they're worth and contribute to the degradation of the forum and the majority of people selling them are just scammers who don't even have accounts for sale in the first place. The rest are usually either just spammers or hackers. With the merit system it's going to be very very hard to farm high ranked accounts now but I think lower ranked like Junior and Member will still be done as it's not that hard to get 1/10 merit respectively.  Personally, I think if we're to continue to allow them then we should also just add more donator ranks like Silver and Gold Member as that would essentially kill the account market in the process as people would much rather buy the benefits of the ranks from the forum rather than some shady black market where nine times out of ten they're just going to be scammed.


-------------



Oh, and this farmer above has currently reactivated and further proof that they're the same is they started waking up at the same time after a period of absence:

You sure about that? Wasn't that the reporter badges? Pretty sure he said by the end of the year for the recovery system.


The rules can be amended. Besides, they're 'unofficial' and I don't think anyone is trying to prohibit users protesting or appealing completely, but rather to limit the number that are needlessly doing it and also clogging up Meta in the process. If the way bans are issued changes and the reason is stated then users won't need to create a new account to ask why they're banned as they'll know. Some will still inevitably protest but people are proposing it should just be in a separate 'ban issues' subboard.

No games I'm interested in today in the Premier League. Will be watching the El Classico though.


Well it's at Wembley and there's a NFL game on today which may fuck up the pitch as some people are worried about. I don't think Spurs will win this personally given their recent performance. I'd give them a shot at a draw at best but I think City will win comfortably. 


I wouldn't put money on the Man U/Everton game but I can see over 2.5 in the Palace/Arsenal game and same for the Burnley/Arsenal match. I think there's more chance of lot's of goals in that game than Man U/Everton to be honest.

Sometimes people just want to be trusted so they can make more money as quickly as possible here (nothing inherently wrong with that),  and sometimes people want to be trusted just so they can abuse that trust at some point and run off with as much money as possible. I'm really on the fence about mdayonliner. He could just be one of those naive guys who jumps into the deep end head first and wants to just make a bit of cash as fast as he can and however he can, or he could be one of those guys who would have just run off as soon as they earned enough trust to be trusted with a large amount of money. You could also start out with the greatest of intentions, but once someone entrusts you with a lot of cash it can make even a good man turn bad and we've seen a few previously very trusted people abuse their 'trusted' position here in the past once they got their hands on an amount they liked. Given mdayonliner ponzi past and a few other things it makes me trust him a lot less, but again, he could just be naively wanting to earn as much as he can, but it's the people who who will often make money whichever desperate way they can that you often have to be most weary of.


Sometimes it's not done to frame someone per se, but it's just bots or bounty spammers trying to abuse other user's publicly posted details. Most of these ICO crap campaigns are lax with their checking and many probably don't even do any sort of verification so it's easy for someone else to use some other users detail and post it as their own. Seen it happen numerous times and I've even seen someone using my name on spreadsheets to try claim bounties with their own address etc.

But I don't think a lot of them do. Most of them probably didn't think they were doing anything wrong, because why would they even ask in the first place? Most people are probably completely oblivious to the rules, and seem to think that as long as they make a post or change a few words it's ok. If they knew the rules here they wouldn't bother asking if they can be unbanned either since they'd know it's not going to happen for such an infraction.


But why not actually tackle the problem at the source of the issue? That's just sweeping the dirt under the rug or into a different room. The crap is still going to be there just out of sight. Chnage the ban message or give them the details of why they were banned and that should stop most people from even asking about their ban. Of course some will still protest but the numbers of them will be greatly reduced.


Well, those were cases of mistaken instances. One was even a well orchestrated set-up, but there's usually no exceptions for anyone who genuinely does copy other's content (though cyrus did unban one user onetime).

He's probably left those negative because they're alts of someone who has already been red tagged. When your 'main' or other known accounts have been negatively trusted then it's you as a person that people don't trust. Often times people use alts to abuse things or get around their negative reputation so that's why alts are also tagged. Take a look at the Panthers52 account in the image. That's a known one of Quickseller who used it to troll and harrass people and the QS account has a lot of negative trust already so he's tagging him for that. The others will likely be similar cases. With that being said, people are free to leave negative feedback as they please so there will be some cases where people red tag others for being alts just because (and I am an example of that - see my trust).


But not everyone can agree. I've seen many people say alt accounts should be banned outright, or that there's no legitimate reason to have one. Some have even said that they don't trust anyone who has 'secret' or non-publicised alt account(s), but as per the forum rules you can have as many as you want and for whatever reasons you want, it't just more often than not people have them for nefarious reasons (though obviously there are exceptions and genuine reasons for them).

The trouble is bots or spammers won't read it or listen to that warning then everyone else just piles in like flies around shit because another thread has appeared that they can post in. People should be able to see for themselves that the thread has been necrobumped pointlessly and to not post in it or report it though. Maybe we should make people fill in a captcha when they try necrobump threads and maybe that will stop some of the bots at least.


Agreed. There are sometimes when it's valid but most times it's just caused by a bot or sig spammer. Had two idiots yesterday bump a thread about April Fools just to post about how it's their 'favourite time of the year' or something like that (both were obvious alt accounts as well spamming up threads in off topic).

What method? The merit system? You might not last long here but if requiring merit is going to scare people away who can't get it then good. The merit system stops nobody from posting here and you can do so with or without merit. It's just if you want to rise through the ranks you're going to have to start contributing something of worth.


I have no idea why he was throwing it around like candy on Halloween. He was just giving it to anyone who asked and often in batches of 30. Utterly defeats the purpose of the system. All the following posts were given 30 points by QuestionAuthority:

I wouldn't be against having a sticky for appeals of which they are only allowed to post in. It would clean Meta up and some people in the past have also tried to bend the rules on technicalities and just started posting in any threads they could in Meta because they're 'technically' only allowed to post in Meta so they'd post in threads that didn't concern them whilst they essentially evaded their ban.


It costs time and energy which equals money, and that's probably why the current email isn't monitored or replied to as theymos doesn't have time. If we changed the message and appeal process then this would cut down on the need to even address the majority of cases and save everybodies time.


It's pointless even appealing a permaban in the current system. If they're told what they were banned for and that it's permanent then most except the truly desperate probably wouldn't even bother trying.

Yeah, the message should be changed and the contact email should be removed if it's not being monitored at all (or hire someone to start monitoring it). There are probably people who email it for many months expecting an answer and it's both futile and unfair to them to keep them hanging, and then it just causes more spam in Meta when they ask there. At the very least we could change the warning to something like You have been banned for breaking the rules. This is usually for copy and pasting content or spreading malware, but please see the full rules here to check what you may have been banned for. If you wish to appeal you can do so in Meta, but bans for copy and pasting are permanent. Or something like that. As I've suggested before having a button that issues the ban and gives the reason automatically as copy and pasting would also be solve this and probably shouldn't be too difficult to implement.  

This isn't a court of law and copy and pasting is an open and shut case.


I don't agree with the op's language he chose but the ban message needs to be changed. At the moment permabanned users usually don't know or aren't 100% sure what they've been banned for (or think there might have been a mistake then can weasel out on). The answer to these threads is always the same though: You're permabanned for copy and pasting and no it won't be removed, so it's just a waste of everybody's time when we have to keep saying this.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would know that actually asking to be included on DT is a big no-no. Just like it is with asking to become a staff member. It's too obvious and the wrong way to go about it and if it was a simple as just asking then everyone would do it, and the majority would probably be doing it for entirely the wrong reasons and crave that power for whatever reason or benefits it has. As with default trust, put in the work and if someone thinks you're doing a good job they'll likely include you eventually. That's how it's meant to work. Earn your right to be on there by showing you can use it efficiently and accurately. It works pretty well in most cases, and I'm sure you were fine with it and had no complaints right up until it turned on you, but when it does those people think it's a broken system and complain the most. Again, I'm not saying it's perfect but usually works well the vast majority of times.


It wouldn't surprise me at all if you already had another account on DT back then or still even do now. You know how to work the system and it's not terribly difficult to get onto if you stick at it enough and leave accurate ratings.


Well that's something you can easily and conveniently say now and all we have is your word for it, but again, anyone with an ounce of intelligence wouldn't offer to start escrowing straight away and build up confidence slowly and over time, but most escrowers naturally fall into it due to being asked repeatedly and I think that's how it should be.


I disagree. You don't have to be involved with trading to want to maintain a healthy environment. That's like saying people who don't drive don't want or care about speed limits or safety systems put in place to protect everyone. It's not always about the money to be made from trading either. Some people just don't want a scam-rife marketplace and want to do the right thing. There is also a lot to lose. If you leave inaccurate ratings then you can either be removed from default trust or get negative yourself if you abuse the system and that can cause loss of earnings from signature campaigns etc. Being on DT is probably more hassle than it's worth, especially when you use it to try prevent scams because all it does it cause you headaches via the abuse and hassle you get.  



Again, I would disagree. Someone can be very good at preventing scams without having much trades here. Also, most people probably do have some trading history, but I don't think we should be exclusively looking for people who have done hundreds of trades before they can be considered for inclusion. Those people will get on there also, but there needs to be a mix. A system full of people just patting each other on the back and giving themselves positive feedback for trades isn't much good either, especially if they care little about trades or scams that don't involve them.  

Theymos said it should be hopefully ready by the end of the year, but there's no guarantees. I also don't know what those who can't sign a message are going to do, or can sign one but from an eth address or whatever.