Lot 1: 0.008
Lot 2: 0.027

Lot 1: 0.014

Context is almost always considered. Hence the reason the rules aren't black, and white. It allows for moderators discretion, and there are times when posting multiple posts in a row is acceptable in my opinion. Other times it just makes it easier to condense that information into one.

Usually they're edited into one, although a personal preference is I don't like editing too many users posts even if its just adding content that they've already posted. A few users can be a little concerned about having their posts edited by a moderator even if no content was removed, and it was simply just combining the multiple posts into one. So, sometimes I opt to message the user instead, and delete the multiple posts.

No doubt, other moderators will be less concerned about combing posts using the edit function, but this is my personal preference.

Its more to check for the forum, and its not a massive issue for moderators to deal with these types of reports. These are probably one of the least complex reports we get, and can quickly handle them compared to other issues like plagiarism which requires source checking etc.

The thing is with this suggestion, users still like to bump their threads, and this would prevent them from doing that, because it would require them to delete their previous reply, which isn't convenient as discussion can be lost. As long as the bump is later deleted there should be no problems.  

If a user has made several posts in a row, but it contains useful information I tend to message them, and let them know the latest one has been deleted, and they should edit that into their reply rather than posting a new post. As I try, and avoid editing users posts directly as much as I can.

Lot 1: 0.012

You might want to see the signatures, but for a specific thread you'd like to discourage those that are posting for the sole purpose of earning from a campaign. Although, this feature alone simply just doesn't solve that, it would be up to the signature campaign managers to identify these threads, and not pay users for their posts within the thread. Therefore, you'd likely see users still posting within the thread for a chance that they may still be paid.

Its more of a way of discouraging users, and isn't a complete solution to anything, but is likely better than disabling signatures globally. Of course, alternatively you could specify a local rule of no users posting within the thread if they have a paid signature, and because the thread is self moderated you could remove them yourself. The drawback to this is direct censorship, whereas a checkbox to not allow signatures isn't censorship of the user directly, but the services they're advertising.

Lot 1: 0.01

I've not used roobet or any gambling site for that matter for a long time. I've only picked up information from this thread, and some of it was based on my interpretation of that. I was definitely speaking from a more legal point of view, and more objective point of view. Morally, I'd rather not get into it as I don't know the specifics. For example, you mentioned that the icon was small, and looking at the screenshot it is fairly small. However, how are we to determine what would be big enough. Ideally, it needs to be in plain view rather than being hidden behind an icon that you have to click or hover over.

So, my interpretation of this whole scenario was wrong. Let me be clear, the win amount displayed once betting the amount was displaying wins over $2k? I thought it may have been similar to that of skybet (at least how it used to be) in that once betting you could go beyond the maximum return bet, however it would always display the absolute maximum you could earn. If, its the other way around then is it a little more morally misguided.

We all know why that thread has been so popular too. Many of the users that have joined the signature campaign aren't that knowledgeable in cryptocurrencies so they tend to talk about what they know, and talking about the signature campaign which is paying them is what they all have in common. A lot of users in that thread have a signature from Cryptotalk.  It is just a way of carrying on discussion on something hugely subjective while also getting paid for it. Of course, there are legitimate discussions within the thread, but there's also a lot of regurgitated rubbish too.

They were smart. They came to the forum with a huge promise of money, and got hundreds of users to sign up, and start wearing that signature. That resulted in most of the forum knowing what Cryptotalk was, and who was behind it. Yobit naturally came up whether it was controversy or those talking about the exchange through learning about it because many pointed out that the campaign was being run by Yobit. Their marketing team knew that controversy would occur, and their payment model of going big at first, and then stepping it down quickly would be the perfect way to get their name out there. They hired a reputable manager which meant it looked like they were trying to avoid spam this time, but when you have 600 participant in the same campaign, and over 400 banned by Yahoo that obviously isn't the best approach. The better approach would be allowing Yahoo full control of who can join the campaign. However, its probably more suitable for them to just end the campaign or limit the number of participants, and start again the future with a similar advertisement campaign.

Great job on keeping that up to date in the public eye as well. Hopefully, other managers are updating their own personal blacklists by checking each, and every account on that list. I've been against the "standard" blacklists in the past because a lot of it is subjective, but if each manager can maintain their own blacklist, and review others without blindly just adding usernames to their own lists I think we'll see a general improvement in signature campaigns in the long term.

I know a few users have stated that this is a shady practice or borderline. Well, most gambling sites have it in their terms that if a bug has been found whether it is known by them or not that the bet would be refunded, and not paid out. As Suchmoon points out Roobet also has this written in their terms. Gambling websites are perfectly in their right to wave off any bet that was the result of a bug within the system, and refund the initial bet amount. Instead, Roobet actually paid to the maximum win which I think is the best possible scenario in this.

You could argue that this is common sense to not allow users to bet if the amount goes over the maximum win. However, several bigger gambling sites allow you to do this. If I recall correctly Skybet  used to have a cap of 100k on certain sports. The return will always show that you are going to win just 100k, and not over which seems to be the only difference here. For example, if you were betting £20, and it displays the maximum bet is 100k you can still bet more than that on their website. So, in theory you could bet £25, but it still displays the win amount to be 100k.

The only difference I can gather from this discussion is on Roobet it displays that you'll win more. However, if they have stated that their maximum bet is x amount then the normal process that other gambling sites would have taken would have been to apologize, and refund the original bet amount rather than paying out for the win. This is subjective, and can sometimes lead to users feeling outraged, but what has happened here is one of the better outcomes of this situation as per their terms which you agree to when signing up, and using the website they don't actually have to pay out if the bet is subject to a bug of the system.

It is an annoyance for the customer, but if the customer knows about this in advance, but still bets knowing they would only be paid the max bet amount then that isn't any better than a gambling site which has it in their terms that they will only pay out to the maximum bet amount.

If you had lost the bet amount then that would have been a different circumstance, and would have been a even bigger shitstorm, because if you knew that you could potentially get that bet refunded, because of their policy of only allowing a certain amount to be won then the gambling site could suggest that you purposely bet over the amount just in case you lost, and have the potential to get a refund, and not lose any money. I'm not suggesting that is/was the intention, but that would have been a moral debate that I think a lot of users would have been split on, because there's two sides of the story.

Roobet have now fixed it according to this discussion so this can't happen in the future so something good has come out of this discussion at least. You have been paid to the maximum win amount, and Roobet have at least honored that where other gambling sites with less integrity would have likely refunded it.

There a select few of users in that campaign which post quality content, but the majority seem to be willing to sell their souls for a little bit of cash. You've got users advertising their service, but at the same time calling it a scam. There was heavy debate about this in the initial days of the signature campaign. However, their advertisement model might not be sustainable in the future, but in the short term their advertisement has definitely worked. Most of this forum now know of their 'service' due to the massive amount of hype, and controversy their platform caused.

As for the participants that have raked in the cash on this, I think most managers have likely noted down their usernames, and will not have them in their campaigns in the future. The amount of accounts that woke up suddenly could probably be investigated for alternate accounts  if they try, and apply for the same signature campaign in the future.

Having said that it definitely isn't on the scale of spam that it was before, and they did make a step in the right direction by contacting Yahoo, and props to Yahoo for accepting a risky job if they've previously been known not to payout in the past. Although, I didn't keep up with the campaign in that much detail to confirm that.

What's the project, and what exactly do you need done? You aren't going to get any serious offers unless you provide more details. If you provide requirements, and qualifications needed then you'll likely get a higher quality pool of people contacting you, and would save yourself a great deal of time too.

Follow the instructions here if your account has been "locked": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5089777.0

If they have been banned then email the email address included in the ban message. There's no guarantee that your accounts will be unbanned, but that's at least the proper procedure to appeal to get the accounts unbanned. Include any relevant information, and wait a few weeks to see if you get a response.  

This is where I would agree that your reputation plays a big part in receiving merit. My observations have been that users in the local sections are more inclined to reward those that regularly post in that section, and are part of that mini community within the forums. As long as there is enough users that are merit sources within your local section, and are rewarding regularly then I would probably say that earning merit in the local sections might be easier due to less competition, and local merit sources are sometimes appointed for the sole reason of distributing merit within their local section.

Generally, a lightweight wallet is usually recommended to those that are new to Bitcoin as it doesn't require downloading the whole chain. However, you'll find the more experienced you become, and your passion grows for Bitcoin you'll likely be more inclined to use Bitcoin core or both. If you want to simply use Bitcoin without downloading the whole chain then a wallet such as Electrum will be fine. If you want to support the Bitcoin network, and can run it 24/7 then a full node such as Bitcoin core is appreciated.

You don't need to delete the browser data at all, and you shouldn't be using public wifi under any circumstances. The implement ion of public wifi is one of the biggest security risks you can expose yourself too. If you are getting hit by the evil IP payment then you can either find a IP which doesn't have that or you can pay the fee. Generally, only IPs which have previously had a high ban rate get evil points assigned.

That makes sense.

True, I'd like to get a dump of all of it if possible without the usernames. I didn't manage to get through all of it.