You may want to think about a couple more mods or more varied mod tools. Today there seemed to be a fair amount of spam in chat, one user even said he was using a bot to post stuff, not a big deal but could alienate folks.
I'd say our chat is one of the more closely moderated one, when taking a peek at the competition here. At least that's for most hours. For what it's worth, we just reinforced, maryrose666 joined our staff over the last week. |
|
|
|
Wir werden und wollen uns hier nicht für unseren Service rechtfertigen.
Wer hier ankommt um für sich zu werben und Kunden zu bekommen, der muss sich einigen Fragen stellen und ggf. sich eben auch rechtfertigen. Ist man dazu nicht bereit, kann man es auch gleich bleiben lassen. |
|
|
|
If someone puts a link to my sales thread on their thread, would that be allowed? It would only be one thread, not thread spam or something.
No, that would be off-topic to your original sale and also ad-spam. Report the post to a moderator. Thanks for any help, I didn't know where to ask this
Meta. |
|
|
|
When you make it public that someone is banned, you make them vulnerable to imposters impersonating them in order to make it appear that the banned user is (attempting to) evading their ban.
What damage would that do to a user that is banned permanently already anyway? You are be thinking about temporarily banned users, which would be banned longer/permanently if evading their ban? |
|
|
|
Bad idea, I suggested this few months ago (maybe more than 1 year ago) and BadBear said it was a bad idea :/. I don't remember why, maybe privacy reason... at the end only the user that is banned must decide to reveal to the others his 'ban status'.
Seeing as you suggested similar things in the past, you're generally in favor of this, right? I would hence asume that your label as "bad idea" comes from being blocked with it in the past by BadBear. That shouldn't keep you from supporting it now and giving things another shot. |
|
|
|
these are such ridiculous reasons to destroy a healthy economy on bitcointalk, and to add a "banned" rank just to encourage the already huge egos of these wannabe moderators.
We're far from a point of it being healty to the forum in any way. That being said, what has this to do with the original suggestion brought up in OP? |
|
|
|
Last but not the least, if you are just spamming/insulting for you signature campaign. Not here, please.
We got better things to do. |
|
|
|
it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.
It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts. Don't be surprised that some others do care, though. [size= 37pt][color=r ed]LAUDA AND RIZZAROLLA ACTING LIKE ADMINS, BETTER YOU CREATE YOUR OWN FORUM RATHER THAN IMPLEMENTING THOSE BULLSHIT SUGGESTIONS, TRUE ADMINS DOESNT CARE ABOUT THIS PRESENT ISSUES , ONLY THE BOTH OF YOU ARE JUST TRYING HARD AND JUST SHOWING ACTS THAT EVERYBODY HATES, IF I WERE YOU,jUST FUCK YOURSELVES BOTH[/color] [/size]
So, you are mad because they care? Interesting. If what you say is true, that none of the admins care about users abusing the forum, there will be no forum long term, because every decent person left and the spammers among eachother will just fill a database. People caring are the worst. |
|
|
|
Sorry mate, I've missed it because it wasn't listed under active campaigns!
New campaigns are listed as PNYC until they complete their first payout. |
|
|
|
Is this list totally updated??? What was the last time this list was updated...if anyone can tell...please help.
Let's take a look at the subject of the thread you just posted in: Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns [Last update: 07-Nov-2016] Spotted it? Wait, I'll help you a little more: [Last update: 07-Nov-2016] |
|
|
|
I didn't know rollin was providing computer repair services these days  |
|
|
|
Not sure, just uncanny that they would all stop suddenly, some owing others (or not as the case may be).
mexxer, shorena and a bunch of quickseller alts? Your imagination might be running wild there, timelord. |
|
|
|
Thank you for interfering here.
You're welcome. This campaign escrow was Anon136. he agreed to pay the campaign payments but when I asked for payment he is excusing strange.
Was it? Usually, your escrow would make a public post in your thread, confirming to take up the task, including signed messages and the address where the funds were escrowed/how much funds are in escrow. I can't find any of those in this campaign. BTW, 0.00775 is not a problem. I will not take a second to pay users from my pocket. I am not going to risk my managing work at the very beginning.
Yet 5 days have passed. so Don't worry.
How could I with experienced users like you on the helm. |
|
|
|
|
The only reason I can see for it being denied back then would be because the original suggestion included non-permanently banned accounts, is that correct?
Could you link to the thread back then (if there was one) or at least give the reasoning from BadBear why exactly something like this was not whished?
Comming back to today, I would support a change like that and definitely think it might help with fighting spam, aswell as account farming supporting said spam.
|
|
|
|
I think he has plenty of those
From what I've heard, stock is slowly running out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
