There's other solutions out there, but Cloudflare definitely has the monopoly within the industry. They're unfortunately the best service around in terms of uptime, speed, and features. However, there's definitely been questions about what they do with the data, and who's seeing the data. I've used Cloudflare, and haven't had too many complaints about them. Possibly if there was a decent competitor I'd give them a look though. I think I remember theymos being somewhat reluctant to using them also.

You'd think that Cloudflare would have the decency to turn newly implemented features off to prevent these sorts of issues. Especially when most websites don't need this sort of in depth location detection.  Despite Cloudflare probably being the  best option its things like these which put me off of using them.

Yeah, if they're copying some of the contents from the original article, and not adding their own constructive ideas or thoughts then I would probably remove these the majority of the time. Every case is different, and I only really agree that its subjective when they've offered their views, but its still largely garbage or rehashed from the original source.

If they're posting just the link, and not offering anything on extension to the article they're linking then report it, and it'll likely be removed. For example, those that posts links to a article which is relevant to the section, and then ask "what are your thoughts", that's unsubstantial in my eyes, and I would likely remove this if removed. The way I see it is if it's relevant news, or a decent article there will other users who will be willing to contribute while linking to the article.

It is already a rule. It fits under the low quality rule. There's a reason why the guidelines are exactly that guidelines if the rules were so specific then users would jump through loopholes to avoid getting banned etc.

Generally, we look at the primary purpose of the thread, and then make a decision on it from there. If the content is relevant, the thread hasn't been posted for the sole purpose of advertising, and the post is substantial enough on its own without redirecting to an external source then its usually okay. If the thread has been posted for the sole purpose of advertising, and the content is average its much more likely to get removed. If you have any doubts about a particular thread just report it, and the moderator dealing with it can make a decision at their discretion.


I'm okay with linking to news sources if you're looking for a discussion on it, however any threads which are copy, and pasting the title, and then linking to the source I usually remove for being low quality. However, if they're actively looking for a discussion or sharing their own views then its usually not a problem.

Unhandled reports basically just mean there has no action been taken. If a report has been sat there for a few days, and its still unhandled its likely that a moderator couldn't decide whether the report was correct or incorrect. They are then considered as "soft" bad reports, but don't impact your percentage. There can be a variety of reasons why the report hasn't been dealt with, but usually because the staff members are unsure what to do.

I definitely agree with Franky that storage in the future isn't going to be an issue. Storage continues to get better (bigger), faster, and cheaper. A few years ago a terabyte cost a lot of money when they first got released, but we are seeing them reduce to almost nothing these days, and everyone even older people who don't use computers that often have 1TB hard drives. At the moment, we don't see storage becoming a problem, and the evolution of storage isn't showing any indications that its going to slow down.

Fake conversations can sometimes be a little hard to determine, and its ultimately down to the discretion of the moderator who dealt with the report. Sometimes, it's worth letting the fake conversations drag on a little so there's a little more substance to the report. Anything which is constantly asking the same questions fake or not should probably be removed. If you expect a user is participating in fake conversations, always report it. Don't worry too much if your report is marked as bad.

I would probably agree on the full node section as its quite nice to have a dedicated section for that. I know there's multiple posts within the Bitcoin technical, and development & technical discussion about full nodes even if they are in the wrong section. Although, I can't look at the demand right now.

Are you referring to the Apple mini's? As far as I know apple hasn't released anything on the scale of Raspberry pi's though.

Which was a quite popular thing to do in Maths class back in the day. It got a few giggles despite how childish, and overused it was. I'm still using the older calculators, but have they really done away with the square looking numbers? How will the kids of today have fun in Maths class now?

Running an exchange isn't as simple as just opening one, and raking in the money. You have to consider the legal implications which could arise, and likely get insurances, and be able to cover x amount of money just in case anything goes wrong. Especially, if you're using someone else's code, and haven't gone through it yourself. The issue with using open source code in this instance it is likely a bigger target to attackers due to the fact that there's multiple exchanges running the software opposed to just one if you use custom code.

If you were setting up a dead mans switch for your family member then this could likely be agreed, and would only be a small compromise. Just like people setup wills, and trust other people to handle it after their death which is a massive compromise considering the trust factor within that. Switching to the same wallet is a rather minor compromise in my opinion for what seems to be a better solution to most other proposals.

Despite the development side going fairly well in my opinion over the years. You shouldn't blindly follow anyone, and should always be looking to challenge, and better a system such as Bitcoin. They aren't always going to be making the right decisions for Bitcoin as I think that's somewhat impossible. Fortunately, the consensus usually picks a fairly good option, but maybe not always the best.

Your report might have been correct, but it depends on what you included in the report field. If you have simply stated "copied from discord" then that's unlikely to get removed unless the moderator has time to join your discord, and check it. It's much better to provide a source, and as much evidence within the report field as much as possible. Even, if its including where the message exists exactly (what channel etc), and/or screenshots.

I would agree with the others that 4-6 pages isn't enough demand to warrant a entire new section in my opinion. The discussion of mini computers can already fit in existing sections without any issue. Especially, as pointed out by bob some of them are buying, and selling mini computers.

However, I wouldn't be totally against having a sub section within technical support solely for the purpose of discussion about nodes, and running them.

This has been a common practice of account farmers for a number of years. Basically, they copy posts made earlier in the thread, because I assume they want it to appear on topic, and less likely to be reported. However, whenever you see this sort of stuff just report it, and it will be dealt with accordingly.

There's a reason why I used those words, and I was careful the way I worded it. Basically, I don't have anything to do with the ban appeal process, and only know a little about the whole process from previous threads. I don't know how strict the unban process is, and I don't know what evidence is accepted. However, from my point of view the way I would handle it. I would certainly accept domain transfers as evidence that the user is no longer owning the website, and consider the context which the link was posted. However, this might also be down to the user. Any website you have publicly advertised might be worth checking in on every so often, and removing any links to ones which have turned malicious. This might sound absolutely crazy, but I believe that would be the moral thing to do. For example, any domains I've parted ways with I've made clear that its now been sold as far as I'm aware. I understand users forget to do this, and might even be too busy. However, I consider morals a priority when it comes to these sort of things. I'd also document this to the public, and message staff members about the change. Being transparent in these things, and going that extra mile that a "normal" user wouldn't do says a lot about morals, and the credibility of the person behind the account.

Yeah, I understand the issues you have with it, but I believe plagiarism should always be dealt with, and my viewpoint aligns with the forum. I haven't always agreed with the guidelines of the forum, and have voiced my opinion about that in the past, however the more I matured, and the more I used the forum I saw that the guidelines here are actually pretty decent. I think I was dead against not moderating scams because I just didn't get it. However, I actually understand why that's a rule these days, and lets just say I no longer have the opinion that I did years ago.

Campaign managers can simply void any posts they consider post bursting if they so wished. However, as long as the replies are constructive there's no rule against posting on multiple different threads in quick succession as long as its not breaking another rule such as low quality or multiple posts in a row etc.

From a personal standpoint I've seen some incredible posters who post in multiple threads at a time, and you might notice that the top 10 threads last reply was from them, but their replies are largely constructive. We haven't all got time to be on the forum throughout the day, and I don't expect users to split their posts out in 30 minute intervals like some of the campaigns suggest. Its down to the discretion of the campaign manager to determine what they want for their campaign for the most effective advertising. However, as a user I don't care if users "post bursting" in this manner as long as its constructive.

Even if DdmrDdmr's suggestion was implemented on the "backend" within the merit page rather than having a ugly "xxxx / xxxx" which would likely cause confusion to those that aren't familiar with the forum, and be a whole new boat load of questions in Meta asking what it is for the next 10 years.

So where "merit" is displayed on a users merit page you could also have "merit earned". If anyone knows what I'm talking, and can whip up a visual representation that would be great

This would likely be a well documented case if something used to be legit, and then turned into a malicious site. Bans aren't just handed out without doing research so there's definitely going to be some discussion on this point. Lets say that the staff member who issued a ban didn't see any evidence of this being legit back in the day, then I'm sure including this information within the ban appeal will solve the issue.

For example, if you owned a domain, and sold it off at some point, but still have links to it in your posts from when you owned it, and its suddenly turned into a malware site. You should be able to prove that the domain was moved on afterwards via domain records, and that might possibly help the situation. Being able to prove that you used to own a domain, and no longer do would probably result in the ban being removed in most instances.

At the moment there's been a lot of users getting banned for plagiarism that was posted a few years ago now that users have the tools to find this on a massive scale which is a good thing in my eyes. It has already been quoted in this thread, but theymos approves of banning anyone that has plagiarized in their post history no matter how far back.

Concerning the second issue then I would tend to somewhat agree, although I don't feel like someone should have a bad report because they've reported a post older than x amount. There's not any rules that say you shouldn't report posts which were posting x amount of days, months or years ago. So, its kind of a conflicting opinion in my eyes. Possibly, what I might do in the future is remove replies which have been reported on active topics only. In other scenarios where the thread has been dead for a long time, possibly mark the report as good, and message the user who reported it saying its not necessary, but I've marked it as good this time. However, if the user keeps on reporting that post, and another moderator deals with it they could game the system to get a report badge, and I'm not sure if that's even an issue to worry about.

I honestly don't know the best way of going about this, and I imagine there's a few moderators that do it differently. However, it certainly hasn't gone against you, and you can look back at my replies, and I'll have some insubstantial posts especially when I was new to the forum. I've had posts deleted before, and have even deleted some myself because I thought they were low quality on second look. Don't worry, us moderators don't have a section where we note down all the reports we've handled, and put a red mark against users