But then what's the point in Meta? As I've said before we don't need sub boards for every little issue, especially when creating a new one will leave the existing one dead or largely inactive. Meta is the board for complaints and people are going to complain. If we want to cut down on these sort of complaints then just fix it so we can state the reason of the permaban more efficiently and most of these threads will stop instantly.

I care about justice too, and I think it has been done here. I don't think I was being rude unless you think calling out bullshit is rude, but I'm just telling you of the rules here and why you were banned. You seem to be trying to wriggle out of the reasons for the ban and act like you didn't copy someone else's post when it's clear for everyone to see and that's what I'm calling bullshit on. I never said this forum was mine either, but I'm really not sure what you're disputing or trying to appeal here as it's a pretty open and shut case of plagiarism.

Yes. Permabanned users should be shown publicly in my opinion, but I'm not sure whether the reason should be stated. It's become very annoying that some people are reporting users who have already been banned and this both a waste of time for them and the staff who have to handle them. If permabans were already shown then this would stop and save everyone's time.


No. That would kind of defeat the purpose of a ban, and they'd likely just abuse the message function if they were still allowed to PM. The only exception I could think of allowing would be to PM staff, but I really don't want to be spammed with dozens of PMs a day from irate users who ant answers that can already be found (or things could be changed so they're given them).


I already did:


But theymos put it in the "No. Or not yet" category:


Though he said the same about the merit requirement for Juniors and that happened so hopefully he his mind can be changed.

No, the reason was copy and pasting someone else's post. It doesn't matter when it was done. Are you saying you included the capital N to try detect when people copy your posts? Quite bizarre when you copied someone else's. Anyway, I'm not sure what bullshit you're trying to come out with here and I don't really care but it's futile complaining about it because you were caught plagiarising and that's why you were banned and for nothing else.

A couple of staff including myself and other veteran users have thrown their hat into the ring to help out with recovering them. Only theymos can choose to do this, but he did say an automatic recovery tool should be available before the end of the year. That won't help those users who don't have a signed message though.


You don't have to be given full root access, you just need to be trusted with being able to restore people's accounts and not abuse that for you own gain.


The problem is they're just not being recovered at all by the admins and until they are (or the recovery tool comes) then people are going to keep making the threads and bumping it every day or so often as that's what they're instructed to do.


People largely don't read stickies. Half of the people whining about account bans or hackings don't even post them in Meta; they just get moved to there by staff. I'll just repost this which I posted in another thread as it's still relevant:

But this is what Meta is for: forum-based issues, and that's what a banned account falls under. It's even in the rules that banned users can only post in here. I don't think we need a new sub for this, especially as Meta would be pretty empty without them, but a way we can severely curb this behaviour is to just change the way bans are issued. If permabanned users are just actually told that they're banned for copy and pastes then 98% of them probably won't bother creating another account to ask why (though I'm sure some will still do so to try futilely protest and whatnot). Bans are clunky and tedious to issue on this forum and I don't know whether theymos will make any changes now, but I'm sure it'll be easier and more efficient on the new forum software and hopefully reasons can be given for all bans. We have one permaban button for Ban + IP ban and maybe theymos could issue another that does the same but automatically gives the reason as copy and paste since the bans issued for this are prolific and probably won't decline anytime soon. Only he can make changes to that though, but I'm not sure a new board is necessary. Same goes for account recovery. They just actually need to start being recovered and moving them into a new section is just sweeping them under the rug.

Yes it's against the rules. If you would have read them then you would have know this. Besides, this isn't all you were doing was it? Where's the translation here:



Why did you bizarrely change the 'n' in bitcoin to a capital N? I'm guessing to try avoid detection? You also purposely jumbled up that post so you knew what you were doing and that it wasn't ok.

Yeah, it's a sad state of affairs what this forum has become and that we have to check people's posts for this shenningans. We really need to get rid of signatures for Juniors. One merit just isn't enough.


Oh so we finally got this guy for c+p. Was thinking I haven't seen him for a while. Anyway, he just came back on an alt doing the same crap and promoting gold and his spamsite. He was nuked. I'd love to know what he's actually trying to achieve here other than traffic to his site. I mean, why this board of all forums?


You are doing the bad thing. You're stealing content in an attempt to obtain money fraudulently by not doing the 'work' you're suposed to. People like you have destroyed the forum and we don't want you here. The fact that you'd wish someone and their entire family dead shows you what sort of person you are and you certainly won't be missed.

I think the trust system works pretty well in most cases, and these issues of reputable users falling foul of it for whatever are probably in the minority though, it's just that when they do happen they obviously cause the most drama and controversy and then suddenly the whole system is broke according to them because of that. Requiring that a user actually be scammed though is counter-productive and does nothing for preventing scams. Sometimes people come here and their only intention is to scam and when that's pretty blatant or highly likely they should be tagged as such rather than waiting for them to scam then leave them it by at which point they've probably just abandoned the account as mission accomplished. I think the system should probably be tweaked a little and people doing tiny trades of say things like $10-50 shouldn't count for much and certainly shouldn't make people 'green' trusted. As for higher ranked users with lots of trust/feedback who end up with a negative feedback or two for some dispute or petty quibble perhaps their long-history or trades should be taken more into consideration and it effects them less or not at all unless quite a few 'trusted' users also leave them feedback (in the cases of someone pulling off a long con or whatever (and sometimes some highly trusted users he do pull a dirty for whatever reason)). Whatever we do (or don't do) there's just no way we can satisfy anyone with anything we do regarding trust and as I've said multiple times before I've never seen a perfect feedback system any where. I remember years ago on eBay when both parties could leave negative feedback, but if you ever did leave the seller negative feedback for whatever reason they just neg-bombed you straight back. People have suggested in the past that two people have to 'agree' to a trade first before negative feedback can be left by either party but we'd just run into the same problem. Just look at all the retaliatory feedback people already get on here and it'd just be the same, though luckily feedback from 'unreputable' people doesn't effect your score, but then of course people also complain about that.

I honestly don't know what we could do other than get rid of the scoring system and there's just a log of trades but I think that would just cause far more issues than it solves and make scammners lives easier whilst reputable users with lots of trades look less reputable or 'trusted' in the process.

I saw that on his instagram. Some fair points but obviously it isn't going to be coming from a unbiased perspective and most people will think they did better than what they actually did, as I think is the case here. Connor got mauled really, and he should have done much better when he was on his feet, but I'm sure he was weary of engaging him too much as getting near Khabib is very dangerous when he's so fast on the takedown. I think Connor would do better in a rematch as he'll know what to expect, but I still think he'd get beat again. I could see it going the full way though and to points and I thought a Khabib win on points initially could have been the outcome if Khabib didn't just win early via submission. The ball is probably in Khabib's court now for a rematch. It's obviously where the money is for both of them but does Khabib care about money that much or about beating Connor again? He might feel like he's got nothing left to prove, or on the flipside he might want another shot to beat the shit out of him lol, but if I was him I'd take the Connor fight regardless because another win would solidify him as one of the greats, and it's the biggest payday for sure. Even in the unlikely event he loses they'll be even more money in a trilogy fight to settle it once and for all. The third fight with Diaz would also be a possibility with McGregor. I think he's got to be careful who he takes though. If he loses his next couple of fights it's going to really damage his reputation and he'll likely become a bit of an over-hyped has-been which isn't good for his image or business. We'll see, but if Khabib is willing for a rematch then I think that will be the next one, but there's other people who probably deserve a shot at the title so that might come into effect.

Not really. There's a list of things in development for the new forum software here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=523070.0

There's a list of community generated suggestions for improvements that anyone can participate in and I proposed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4893744.msg44062249#msg44062249

So far the merit requirement for Juniors has been the only one implemented, but theymos did comment on which ones he might consider here and put them into three different categories (OK/maybe/no): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4893744.msg44432901#msg44432901

I think cracking down on badly run ICO sig campaigns would be the most beneficial right now, along with more staff and admins being added to cope with demand and workload. Somethings like account recoveries just aren't happening at all and theymos even mentioned he'd thought about stopping the ad slot auctions because he doesn't have time for them (some other staff member could run them and I certainly don't think we should cut off pretty much the only source of forum income just because of that).

I think there's very few people who craved more power here than you and you tried to get a lot of it as quickly as you could. My only wonder is if you tried to do this for nefarious/scammy reasons and/or for purely monetary gain or not. You tried your best to get numerous positions of power here starting with default trust and then escrowing and you were even gunning for a staff position, one which you probably would have got eventually. People seem to love the default trust system here and look to achieve it and once they're on it and they have that 'power' it's great for them, but then as soon as they're removed or fall foul of it it's suddenly the worst system in the world and full of tyrants and abusers. I don't doubt that there's some people here who get off on leaving feedback, but I think the vast majority of people are just doing what they think is right and trying to protect other users, but one thing I do know is it's more hassle than it's worth and you get little in return from it and as I just said:



I don't usually look for people who have lots of trading experience, but for people who can leave what I believe to be accurate ratings. I have done very little actual trading here in the grand scheme of things, and was put on DT initially by BadBear probably for my ratings on scammers which he must have thought were accurate enough. At the time of that I'd probably only engaged in one or two actual trades here other than earnings from signature campaigns etc. 

I don't claim to know everything. Where did I ever make this claim? Where did I ever claim to know how much money you may or may not have or what you can and can't do? You're just projecting things on to me based on your opinion, which is obviously biased.


Yes, it is a warning. Why would I give neutral. I'm not going to leave a neutral trust for someone who tries to escrow deals with little to no reputation, especially for such a high amount. I find it highly likely something would have gone amiss with this deal if it had of happened. That's just too much money and I just don't trust you and that's reflected in the feedback. I've left plenty of feedbacks against people offering escrows when they shouldn't and many of them still went on to scam. I'm not saying you would have for certain and that's something we'll never know but I still don't trust you because of it, hence the feedback.


You got me. This was all a ploy just to solicit donations from buttlickers for a Lamborghini. Well done for busting me. So far I have received zero donations for my Lambo fund so it's going very well (but if anyone wants to donate to it my address is in my profile). I mean, what the hell are you rambling on about? You got exited, did something stupid and got negative feedback. Stop talking bollocks and making stuff up just to suit your arguments.


No. This is just your opinion. I don't know everything, but I'm pretty positive I do know your alt.


Why would I do you that favour? You'll just create a new one and move on to that one then I'll have to wait till my all knowing powers sense your presence again. Maybe I will leave it negative. Maybe I won't. Maybe I'll give you a second chance, but I'm watching you, don't worry. Just don't try make any more escrow deals once you become a Senior.


How did I build them up very easily? You think it's easy to build the rep I have and write tens of thousands of posts over five years and acquire so much merit? And what's a competition? This account is also DT2 and I don't have time to tag them all so I let other members of the community check the info, offer their input and look for more etc.


Why do I care whether you think I'm bluffing? I'd be willing to bet money on it if you want to put some in escrow (and no, we can't use you as an escrow  ).


I'd easily be able to do it, but it's not something I'm going to waste my time on just to prove something to you. If you wanted to put some substantial amount of money on this to make it worth my time I'd possibly take you up on the bet though.

Yeah, it's annoying and essentially forum-clickbait, but what can we do about it exactly? Ban users who do this? Or staff edit the title to something more accurate? It's just one more headache for staff and another thing pilled on top of the shitheap that we have to do. Maybe users should be encouraged in the thread to edit it to something more appropriate, but you're never going to be able to stamp out this because people are idiots and also lazy.


Exactly. If there's not enough info in the thread title it wastes everybodies time as we have to read it to see if it's something we can even help with. If it's something to do with a banned account then I might be able to help, but if he wants to know something about technical or about theoretical physics then I probably can't help them and that's why as much info as possible should be put in the title. It's beneficial to everyone, especially if someone with the knowledge about the subject can chime in as opposed to them ignoring it just because it says "help" or whatever.


Yep. There's far more pressing issues right now and pretty much most of them are just being ignored or put on the back burner so can't see this going anywhere.

What do you mean by division? A new rank or some sort of league table? We already have that in the merit stats, but I've previously suggested that a new rank should be created after Legendary for those users with an exceptionally high number of merit so there's something still to achieve once you become one. Legendary has already become far too common as well. You could even just make the Legendary rank require the high number of merit and demote everyone else to Hero. It's not like Legendary comes with any significant benefits over Hero either other than you've been here a bit longer. Theymos has mentioned the possibility badges for reporters and people (including myself) did suggest them for people who achieve very high levels of merit also, but as people have already said you can already see which users have achieved a lot  and compare that to their posts for somewhat of a ratio. I still think badges for various things would be cool though.

Ban reasons are given but usually just for a temp ban. There's one button to 'IP and permaban' someone and it's much easier to click that than manually give all these idiots permabans the long way with a customisable reason and when you've got to ban 20 people at once it would become incredibly time consuming and tedious to do so. Theymos should probably change the permaban message to something like You have been permabanned. Some common reasons include spreading malware and plagiarising content, but please see the full rules here (or something like that). That way people can work out what they were banned for. I've also previously requested new buttons for certain bans. For example: So there's one button that when you click it gives a user a seven day ban for unsubstantial posts, and another that permabans them and gives them the reason as copy and pasting and so on. This would be much more efficient for everyone.

I've also requested that users who are permabanned that information is publicly displayed under their username or something, but not sure whether we should include what exactly for in that. It seems like theymos is likely even against showing which users are banned publicly (not sure why, especially when people are reporting dozens of users a day that are already permabanned and it's time-wasting for both users and staff to have to report and handle these).

But this guy is worse. Five times so. He already had 4 accounts banned for the same thing and yet still finds it pertinent to ask and that's what I don't get. Does he think we might have just made a mistake and will rectify that and unban him? I really wish admins would look into serious cases of ban evasion like this. They could probably pull up all his alts with the click of a button and since he's been banned on numerous accounts for copy and pasting I'm sure there's many more and some will likely carry on evading detection. Now, the question is will he come back and ask the same if any more are banned? Place your bets, please. I've just banned another 10 accounts for copy and pasting so we'll see. Hopefully suchmoon will find some more  .

Don't forget to put your scores in for tonight's games. Doing mine now but there's quite a few players who still haven't. Anyone think Juve will turn over United? Thought it might have been a bit closer if Ronaldo wasn't paying but turns out he'll be back for tonight. Would have gone for 1-1 draw but I think Juve will probably take it but you never know with United. Jose's jobs still on the line but I don't think tonight's game would be the decider. Not really any other games I'm interested in tonight other than that one.

I just can't even...

Why do you keep asking the same question when it is obvious what your accounts have been banned for:



The sad thing is I bet you've got an army of ones we've missed still posting away. Any more you'd like to get off your chest whilst you're here?

Holy fuck, I can't believe he's still at this playing dumb. I'm baffled.

You were banned for the same thing all your other accounts were:



I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve here given you've got the same answer four times before. Why would you think this time it would be any different?