|
Over 12 threads on the first page of Meta have been about user bans.
Just as with the signature campaign threads littering the Services section, the Meta section too has been contaminated with a cesspool of spam.
This is not unique to the recent ban wave and will not be unique going forward. We have seen many threads appear over the years and I'm sure that long-time users will wonder the same things as I do:
Why is there no designated Ban Appeal sub-board?
If a user is banned for plagiarism, why aren't they linked the exact post in question?
How is ban evasion so prevalent and allowed to proliferate?
At the very least... the second one would stop the appeal threads of "I did nothing wrong" from appearing, saving us much-needed forum space for discussion about some more important things.
A clear indicator would be preferable. A sub-board would be even better.
|
|
|
|
Ironic, how I behest others to disengage. Last one, since this is something new.
You must be a scared human througing always so foul-mouthed words arround.Could be also the result of being mentally defeated
Big mouth hiding ?Do you have no balls as you always claim? What a fucking nonsense you claim. he gave horseshit which could be used for a clear identification by law. I hope you will take it like a men and stop bitching arround once you see the results of my actions. We destroy accounts in the name of prevention because all users on bitcointalk are little monkies acting like a 4 year old.Only TMAN Lauda and Suchmoon will be able to protect these little no brain monkeys /irony i don't wanna hear bitching about me when suchmoon is going to be hold responsible and that i didn't gave her a fair chance and warning to remove that abuse. Big mouth, large oral orifice |
|
|
|
But i don't understand why you are asking ?You are such a big mouth and still let me beg to confirm your facebook profil like last time.
It would take 5 sec.Where is the problem for you to confirm your profil when you claim you are willing to give me your full details ?
Vod you are begging me to open that lawsuite so you don't have 5 sec to confirm your facebook profil ?
Whats up ? "I just don't understand why you won't want to self-dox and subject yourself to a lawsuit" That is, assuming your words aren't blanket statements... which they often appear to be.
In regards to doxxing, it shouldn't happen if you have the entire picture. When you have enough details to create a case outside of the forum for legal authorities to step in, public doxxing serves as a means to spread their information rather than investigate the user (case-by-case in certain scenarios). If going after someone you presume is scamming or violating the law and you do not have enough details for their local jurisdiction to act upon, then creating an investigation thread for the purposes of uncovering their details to pursue legal action is more justified.
Let's lock this and stop with the irreverent bickering, aye? |
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with encrypting your passcodes, seeds, etc. in your will?
Or actually if you want to ensure that you can release this, just create a time-based message to which you have to refresh every [duration]. If you're dead, it's sent!
|
|
|
|
|
Up.
For some, the fickle nature of stroking one's ego by venting their desires in public to extract the attention of others is unable to be quelled with words alone.
|
|
|
|
This an achieve post but hold some usefulness in it. But don't forget bounty is also like a hired service. Signature campaign organisers through campaign managers place and advert to prospective workers and employ them when the had fully all the required criteria. I don't think it's a wrong thing being on service board.
People also adverts there works(signature designers, escrow services, signature campaign management e.t.c) another board just for signature campaign alone would be unnecessary
I'd disagree. Signature Campaigns are usually an initiative by companies or projects whereas the other services you mention are users offering their work, there is a difference and it should be treated as such with it's own board, imo at least. The false dichotomy can be pinpointed to this simplicity: Signature campaign threads are bound by definition to contain a mass of posts in regards to registration. These replies are not guaranteed to result in a transactional event. You might argue that with other threads, the same is true, however the rate at which this occurs is quite gapped. Mind, signature campaign threads also receive a higher number of bumps than other threads which are dependent on demand of the individual rather than of the group (of prospective campaigners, a larger set of the services space). This pushes many of the non-campaign threads down. It would be as if you tried to offer a service in the Altcoin Bounty section: it would be buried. (Services is less insane than bounties but an analogue can be drawn) |
|
|
|
More participants in a particular campaign then that campaign needs big allocation of tokens. What is this even supposed to mean? We're talking stakes here, not fixed numbers. |
|
|
|
|
Why in the world would debate threads even pop into your mind when they can simply be resolved in PM's?
|
|
|
|
Here's the thread, as an archive: https://archive.is/4FHEX
There is nothing that says it's a 1:1 ratio between stakes and tokens. It wouldn't even make sense mathematically when you consider the % allocation. |
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, the Off-topic board is just a place to deposit spam.
There is little to no distinction between "good" off-topic replies and bad ones.
It is an unfortunate necessity in order to contain tumors to one section, much like how Games & Rounds and Investor-based games split from Gambling.
|
|
|
|
PrefaceThe current state of the boards that I frequent—that being Meta and Reputation—have started developing metastatic growths. The egregious decay thereof brings a nauseating miasma of dread to my mind. For this trepidation to cease, there is a crucial obligation that must be followed by all.
CurrentfaceIngrained into our internet culture was a phrase echoed throughout the plethora of websites: don't feed the troll. Each bump renews the lifespan of the thread. Each bump renews the attention of the troll. Each bump renews the opportunity for recursion. An incontinent approach to dealing with those that are bloating the forum with droves of threads is that of a response. Retort I: What about the signature spammers? What about them?Signature spam encompasses the forum across all boards, perhaps with the exception being larger Scam Accusation threads and the Technical Discussion board. The key difference between the response of a signature spammer and that of someone with a personal stake is just that: the former has no formal investment in the situation. Spammers do not bring forth a pleasure of serendipitous schadenfreude. Trolls gain nothing (apart from visibility of their threads) from spammers writing a generic reply in response. To bring forth virility in the form of a response to those that you despise is a pathetic self-immolating sacrifice.Retort II: What about thread hijacking? What about it?Report, ignore, and continue your discussion. If you do not allow individuals to create an impact toward your forum experience then all they have done is waste money in the form of electricity and internet cost. Aside: if they are using publicly accessible internet...
They are also trading the cost of a network connection for privacy.
You can enjoy that thought. Let them tire themselves out.
PostfaceTo dignify irrelevancy with a response means you are simply bringing forth the irrelevance into your post. Do not respond to pointless discussion. Do not worsen yourself or your position to engage in asinine behavior. Think back to the old tale of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Let the repetitious redundancy of blanket statements, false equivalencies and bullshit continue to pulverize their position until there is but a particle of the residual reliability they have given up on restoring. |
|
|
|
I just came here because of the title ... which is irrelevant to the topic and just a burst of outrage due to the indignant mind of someone trying to rationalize their anger towards another.
Over half of the thread now is about some irrelevant sidebar discussion. Lock this shit, thanks. |
|
|
|
It seems to me you're the one harassing him and trying to bang him
-snip- Responding to spam with spam only exacerbates the issue at hand: spam. Justifying an action with another of the same usually means that you are in the wrong. |
|
|
|
Nice try.
Considering the method ( Paypal) and request for others to go first in your threads... it's suspect at minimum. The merit issue is not as important. You should be prepared for "warning" posts if you aren't a bastion of reliability. Self-modded threads and locked threads have the look of a scam waiting to happen, even if it's not your intention. |
|
|
|
|
Considering the fact that 2FA has not yet been implemented on our SMF-based server, it's unlikely to see this happen any time soon.
An alternative would be to use a password manager that will recognize your fingerprint.
Selling your fingerprint data for convenience, though... hm...
|
|
|
|
If reasons for a ban are made obvious as in included in the ban message, it going save mods some time from further clarifications What do you mean? It's a binary choice and an easy decision at that: if you are not spamming, then you were banned for plagiarism. If you were banned for spamming, then it would be clearly shown in your posts -- the threshold for a ban for the reason of spam is ridiculously high. If there is some gray area, then you either: A) created a huge number of insubstantial posts = bad B) plagiarized content for the purpose of increasing post count = bad Pick your poison. |
|
|
|
[bullshit from reading thread title] Go read the goddamned thread. |
|
|
|
My beloved Stompix you would have been right if we would have the year 2013 since you gave regulations from 2012 as evidence.
I would recommend looking for up to date regulations.
Sincerly Thule Here they are! Article 71b
The jurisdiction of a common court shall be determined as follows:
(1)
a common court shall have jurisdiction where, under this Regulation, the courts of a Member State party to the instrument establishing the common court would have jurisdiction in a matter governed by that instrument;
(2)
where the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State, and this Regulation does not otherwise confer jurisdiction over him, Chapter II shall apply as appropriate regardless of the defendant’s domicile.
Application may be made to a common court for provisional, including protective, measures even if the courts of a third State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter;
(3)
where a common court has jurisdiction over a defendant under point 2 in a dispute relating to an infringement of a European patent giving rise to damage within the Union, that court may also exercise jurisdiction in relation to damage arising outside the Union from such an infringement.
Such jurisdiction may only be established if property belonging to the defendant is located in any Member State party to the instrument establishing the common court and the dispute has a sufficient connection with any such Member State. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32014R0542Note: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32012R1215 is still in force. (15)
The rules of jurisdiction should be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant’s domicile. Jurisdiction should always be available on this ground save in a few well-defined situations in which the subject-matter of the dispute or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different connecting factor. The domicile of a legal person must be defined autonomously so as to make the common rules more transparent and avoid conflicts of jurisdiction.
(16)
In addition to the defendant’s domicile, there should be alternative grounds of jurisdiction based on a close connection between the court and the action or in order to facilitate the sound administration of justice. The existence of a close connection should ensure legal certainty and avoid the possibility of the defendant being sued in a court of a Member State which he could not reasonably have foreseen. This is important, particularly in disputes concerning non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation. |
|
|
|
Blanket statements are made by those that have no foundation to stand upon, so they erect a monument of air pretending as if there is substance. Theymos clearly stated that the tags i got are an abuse of the trust feedback. Did he? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
