I am not familiar with OH laws, however I would say it is a safe bet the provision was put in that law to avoid it conflicting with another law.

The law was also apparently back by Christian conservatives, who presumably to prevent non-married people from touching eachother in these clubs.
yup. 

The US is a county of laws, and as long as a law is in effect, and does not conflict with a law passed by a higher authority (eg., a local ordinance conflicting with a state law), you must follow the law or be at risk of facing the consequences prescribed in the law.

The law was passed by elected officials who were duly elected, so it is arguably fair to say the law is part of the will of the people.

In general, I do not like government regulations, however simply ignoring a regulation is not the answer, the solution to regulations is to persuade the government to change/remove said regulations either via elections or via petitioning the government to do so. If you fall under the jurisdiction of a regulator, and ignore their regulations, you will almost certainly face consequences.

I would also point out that the police being at the club was apparently part of a long term sex trafficking investigation.


Yes, it seems as if a single word in the statute allowed Stormy to get out of the charges. My reading of the law is that if she had fondled the patrons on the 2nd night she was scheduled at the club, she would have been found guilty. Although considering the law does not specify the "employee" needs to perform at the same establishment "repeatedly" it is arguable she would be found guilty if it was determined she had performed in multiple clubs in OH under the court's jurisdiction, which I believe to be the case. Perhaps the DA didn't want to have to deal with the BS from her lawyer who likes to try cases on friendly cable TV stations.

Initial reports were that stormy had allowed a patron to touch her.

A spouse is a person's family member. Having your spouse touch you is not weird to everyone... 

That percentage is unlikely to be only nuked accounts however nuked accounts likely make up a decent chunk of “brand new” accounts.

I suspect that a very large percentage of those accounts are inaccessible to their owner for one reason or another. If someone is proxy banned they may create a new account on a different IP instead of paying the fee, someone might have forgotten their password and just created a new account.

Right. Being a political actor does not and should not give you safe harbor to break the law.

It also seems both her and her lawyer appear to be leveraging their anti-trump stance and what is likely a bogus story for their own personal financial gain.

I would be willing to bet this is some kind of bot using not very good AI. Both posts very broadly match the topic of the thread but are outright incoherent.

For example having a toothache does make people not happy and does cause pain. Using basic logic would imply that therefore not having a toothache (the opposite of having a toothache) would cause someone to be happy (the opposite of being not happy).

If you think an actual person wrote this then you believe that someone who is illiterate was able to sign up for bitcointalk and figure out how to join a bounty campaign. I don’t think any translation service would screw things up this badly.

This may be the result of needing more board specific mods in certain boards. It may also be the result of certain mods declining to handle certain reports for one reason or another -- perhaps because they do not have time to investigate a report, because they do not agree with/understand an underlying rule, there is some conflict of interest, or some other reason.

That is ridiculous. Courts have a standard practice against punishing people for crimes, including murder under similar logic - this includes refraining from finding guilt under these circumstances.


More ridiculousness. Privacy and the right to anonymity is a fundamental right protected by the US constitution and is a valued ethos of the forum. The overwhelming majority of people that conduct any kind of business on the forum conceal their identities (those who do not conduct business have an even greater percentage of anonymity), including those with significant trust and authority. Even the mods, including the global mods are allowed to keep their identity secret from even the administration, even if this means they can conceal income and assets so they can continue to receive welfare transfer payments from the government.

According to her dirtbag lawyer, Michael Avenatti, Stephanie Clifford, whose "professional" name (the name she is known as in porn movies, strip clubs, and CNN) is Stormy Daniels was arrested in an Ohio strip club for allowing a patron touch her, which is illegal under OH statutes.

If the allegation is true, should Daniels be given a 'free pass' because she and her lawyer are vocal in trying to spew dirt on President Trump? Or should she face the consequences of her actions like anyone else in her situation would have to?

edit/correction: the actual reason she was arrested was because she touched a patron at the club where she was performing. Her lawyer did in fact say (inaccurately) that she was arrested for allowing a patron to touch her.

In general, all Global mods do is help the moderators handling reports. Some global mods will also help with administrative duties such as temp bans, account recoveries and the like.

If there are sufficient section moderators, having additional global mods will not be necessary.

As long as there are shady ICOs/campaigns around, aTriz should have no trouble getting hired to manage campaigns.

jamalaezaz has a decent amount of controversy around the campaigns he manages and he allegedly has gotten a decent amount of business since these controversies. He probably can even hold the ICO tokens necessary to pay bounty participants because if he tries to pull any shenanigans, it would be trivial for the company behind the ICO to resolve this issue by invalidating stolen tokens in one of many ways.

This is one reason why I am against using the trust system against those who are not suspected of planning on trying to steal money or property from others in the future (or have not attempted to steal the same already).

I would say the totality of the circumstances indicate that aTriz never cared about the community and has only ever cared about his personal finances. 

Hey this was supposed to be kept confidential! Not cool....your inability to keep secrets has been noted.

You should exclude the brand new users from your stats. They are likely to be spam bots that are banned.

I don’t think it is exactly breaking news that signature campaigns are contributing to the amount of crap posts around here.

1- you fraudulently altered that quote and enough people know the area where I live and the area TF lives for it to be reasonable to say we are not the same person.

2- you know very well that theymos cannot say without a doubt that an account is being run by it’s original owner so you are basically saying that because you speculate something that you have zero evidence of cannot be disproven it must be true. That is the exact kind of logic that would make me question their judgement.

3- BadBear confirmed years ago I have no unknown alts, which you choose to ignore.

I would be extremely skeptical of anything TF says when you cannot independently verify his statements. TF is very smart, and knows how to make well rounded arguments that have merit. However TF also likes to mix in information that is difficult to substantiate and/or is otherwise untrue into his arguments, which ultimately makes those arguments not hold water. As it stands now, TF has not funded any kind of escrow for that bounty, and even though he has said he will pay "someone" for information, it appears as if that someone is likely to be an account that is under a week old.

I am not entirely sure what TF's angle is in soliciting an escrow but not selecting and funding escrow for his bounty. Perhaps it is to give credibility to him paying old CL debts via settlements, as he is likely running up against the statue of limitations to file suit against him (5 years). It is also very possible he has simply been unable to locate anyone he sufficiently trusts to act as escrow, and there is no ulterior motive. My understanding is that TF has denied that he was involved in any of the thefts/losses his customers suffered via his businesses.

In regards to the OP, I am not a huge fan of telling people what services they can and cannot offer to others, as I strongly believe people should be free to evaluate people's qualifications and trust to make a decision to trust them or not. On the other hand, Mdayonliner very much has very close to zero trading history, and from what I can tell, has been entrusted with nearly no of anyone's money in the past, and was offering to hold ~$120k of someone else's money for a year -- it is difficult to argue that this is not a scam attempt. Also, to be frank, his trust history of trying to call out "merit abusers" is evidence he was trying to get unwarranted trust.

The problem is that there are incentives to do bad things in the forum, such as paying people to advertise while making crap posts as said advertising creates exposure for what is being advertised and there are no real consequences to doing this. This is in addition to incentives for people to make low effort posts they are being paid for by the number of posts.

There is no easy solution because most solutions will affect those who are not causing harm.

I don’t understand why so many people around here think it is okay to tell people how to conduct business and how they should be saying things.

This forum is an advocate for freedom and likes to give people as much freedom as possible.

I don't think it is the administrations place to say who can and cannot earn money, especially if they are not doing anything on the forum except making a post in a specific section not designed for actual discussion.

There is a reason why the people behind ICOs want broad exposure on social media -- because they want many people to see posts (that are really advertisements) for their ICO, and hopefully have one of their #hashtags go trending for some people. I would not be surprised if some of the mass accounts are actually hired by the people behind the ICO to manipulate social media, and the other mass accounts are still providing social media exposure to the ICOs anyway, so those behind the ICOs usually wont care one "person" (more likely a bot) is claiming their bounty 100 times.

Regardless of the above, I don't see why someone who isn't very active on the forum but is active on other social media platforms shouldn't be able to participate in bounties. If someone wants to tweet about ICOs or talk about ICOs with their friends on Facebook, let them, and let them earn money doing so. If we force people to rank up to participate in bounties who have no real interest in posting here, they will only post crap they put little effort into, and will go around begging for merit so they can rank up. If they have no interest in posting here, let them post what they want on social media.


When you charge people to enable signatures, people will quickly learn they will lose their investment if they post nonsense. More effort could be put into banning multi-accounters when they are posting crap, and maybe even the threshold to ban them should be lower, so someone with 10 accounts might risk $200 instead of $20 if they post even a little bit of low quality posts.

Non paying users might be able to have very basic signature functionality. Maybe users could have some signature features enabled for free if they self-certify their signature is not being used for commercial purposes each time they change their signature, and if they are caught with a commercial signature after certifying their signature is not commercial, their signature privileges can be revoked for a year, or however long.   

Why do you think this would make things worse?

If signatures were outright disabled, the incentive to make low value posts would essentially disappear, and the value of a higher ranking account would be little because of the lack of earnings potential a higher ranking account would have, so I don't think the merit system would be necessary anymore.

If people were required to pay for signatures to be enabled, we could outright remove the merit system. We could even have a system in which users each time a user ranks up they will need to pay to have additional signature features enabled. I personally would prefer to use something like this because it gives users more of an incentive to not engage in behavior that will get them banned because doing so would result in them loosing their investment in their signature features. The payment for signatures would essentially be a bounty that users will not post low value posts.

One of the biggest flaws in the merit system is that everyone who was already ranked up was grandfathered into their rank. A good number of the people I have seen posting crap have a fairly high ranking account but have received exactly zero merit since the merit system was implemented.

---

As a general rule, it is trivial to obtain bitcoin to two separate addresses that cannot be linked to eachother, even if they have transactions. It takes patience, but it is also not difficult to move bitcoin to an exchange in order to consolidate bitcoin inputs if the exchange allows for multiple deposit addresses.

I am also not a fan of forcing people to conduct business a certain way.