Hello mprep I'm part of the Darkcoin community and spend most of my time on BCT in the [ANN][DRK] Darkcoin | First Anonymous Coin | Inventor of X11, DGW, Darksend and InstantX thread As you would no doubt know, we've had many many examples of people posting FUD and undertaking concerted campaigns against Darkcoin. We currently have an individual who is posting lies and slander about the lead developer of Darkcoin, Evan Duffield and the Darkcoin community in general. Many of us have directed him to numerous posts and documents on why the issue he's constantly referencing isn't anything of concern to investors and the community and that it's something that was sorted long ago. But he's simply continuing on relentlessly determined to do damage. INSTAMINE ALERT
Attention: The developers and insiders instamined 2+ million DRK in the first 48 hours of launch.
SCAM IN PROGRESS
I think it needs to be dealt with by a BCT mod. regards RenegadeMan Read the OP: Possible (or real, not for me to judge) FUD, accusations or statements are not moderated Okay, thanks. If you have any ideas on how to handle someone like this (apart from the usual everyone putting him on ignore) please let me know. You can always suggest OP to close the old thread and open up a self-moderated one. |
|
|
|
Hello mprep I'm part of the Darkcoin community and spend most of my time on BCT in the [ANN][DRK] Darkcoin | First Anonymous Coin | Inventor of X11, DGW, Darksend and InstantX thread As you would no doubt know, we've had many many examples of people posting FUD and undertaking concerted campaigns against Darkcoin. We currently have an individual who is posting lies and slander about the lead developer of Darkcoin, Evan Duffield and the Darkcoin community in general. Many of us have directed him to numerous posts and documents on why the issue he's constantly referencing isn't anything of concern to investors and the community and that it's something that was sorted long ago. But he's simply continuing on relentlessly determined to do damage. INSTAMINE ALERT
Attention: The developers and insiders instamined 2+ million DRK in the first 48 hours of launch.
SCAM IN PROGRESS
I think it needs to be dealt with by a BCT mod. regards RenegadeMan Read the OP: Possible (or real, not for me to judge) FUD, accusations or statements are not moderated |
|
|
|
Edited the OP including a few suggestions by hilariousandco: -Added the new Gambling child board in the guidelines: Investor-based Games (child board of Gambling) - "Games where the main factor is whether or not new "investors" join the game. Also any Bitcoin-denominated investment product with an APY far above the reasonable market rate. " That includes ponzis, HYIP and other "invest and get tons of cash tomorrow" type sites. -Added a new FAQ question: Q: Where can I find all the moderators/staff/administrators?A: Just go to the Member search page ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=mlist;sa=search), untick all the boxes and then tick "Search by position". To find all regular moderators like board moderators, local moderators or patrollers (site-wide newbie moderators), search for " Staff" (without the quotation marks). To find all global moderators, search for " Global Moderator". To find all admins, search for " Administrator". Make sure to check you are not dealing with an imposter: real mods have the " Position:" field (or the field bellow their username and above their rank (like 'Member' or "Hero member") when they PM or post) set as either Staff, Global Moderator or Administrator. Also, administrators and global moderators have a half colored last coin when you view the left side of their PM or a post. Admins have a red one and global mods have a light blue colored one. -Edited in a thread about activity in the FAQ: -Added a note at the top of the thread in light of the sticky: NOTE: This is meant to serve as a reference/educational/informational thread, NOT a rock solid list of rules.
|
|
|
|
From https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0: Q: Why haven't you banned <insert scammer username here> who is an obvious scammer?
A: Possible (or real, not for me to decide) scams are not moderated to prevent moderator abuse. If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions. |
|
|
|
It might be 'unofficial' but stickying it can seem as officially sanctioning it IMO, but I think he just wasn't too keen on that happening but maybe he's relaxed his position on the matter. I think the rules should be clearly stated for people though regardless of if they will try get round them. A few suggestions: Seems the Investor-based Games section hasn't been added to the list of boards. Could you maybe add a list of staff/mods as well? I think that would be helpful. Maybe adding the activity updates thread to the activity section would be helpful also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582736.0Yeah, I was thinking of adding the new section just now. Will implement the suggestions later today or tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Just a heads up, I stickied the thread for you. With the thousands of "what did I do wrong?" meta threads popping up, I didn't think that your pretty well documented list of basic rules needed to be fighting for the front page or be bumped daily for people to find it. The poll is pretty overwhelmingly in support, and its pretty clear that it is the unofficial rules, so it doesn't interfere with the necesity for the rules to be flexible to deal with issues on a case by case basis. If there is any concern about this being stickied, direct it at me. At the moment I can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't be, so I acted.
Thanks mprep and contributors.
Thanks. Closed the poll. I think it's a good choice though maybe BadBear doesn't agree? I think people should be given a chance to see the rules though, but as with most stickies most people don't seem to read them but I guess they've got no excuse now.
As it is stated, I've named it "unofficial" for a reason. It's more of a reference thread rather than something to unquestionably base on. If BadBear sees any sentence that might show otherwise, I will change it so others wouldn't get the wrong idea. |
|
|
|
Yup, I'd be one of the people who was annoyed not to get paid to my own address. However, as you said, the fact that I can make an account for free and withdrawal without fee (or verification procedures) certainly mitigates this. Still, my feelings get a little wounded if I feel like someone is trying to manipulate me or take advantage of me (which is a feeling I get if they want to pay me in a way that feels like they're trying to get me to spend it right back to them).
I'd look at it like if you wanted to gamble with your sig payment, you save on transaction fees you'd pay when you deposit bitcoin. Personally, I wouldn't mind that much as long as the payment would be increased by the amount it costs to withdraw the bitcoins. Or maybe just remove the withdrawal fee for 1 withdrawal each time you receive a sig payment. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
