I'll take them. We've dealt with each other before, so this should be another smooth transition. Just for future reference, I'll most likely buy any and all US iTunes gift cards that you come across! I'll send you Bitcoin now, as long as you haven't sold these yet (within the last 9 minutes lol) Transaction ID: https://blockchain.info/tx/1f23795d9623c08270d49604dd3d48dfb71ddb4c4dae7075bb79d733e8bf1f92Please PM me the codes (after a couple confirmations, of course). I will update this thread to report back after I have redeemed the codes. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Can someone remember that thread?
This kind of issue has been discussed before and it would not take long to search for that thread.
You just directly contradicted yourself. What was the point in stating that this thread has no purpose if you're not able to back your claim that this issue has already been addressed? tsk tsk
When I signed up there was no requirement to provide an email address at all (I don't know if that is still the case).
It is no longer the case. I just registered a new account for a new venture that I'm a member of, and although email verification was not required, an address was. Here's what is displayed on the registration page: 
While potential scammers could use your email to register an account here, it wouldn't be hard for you to gain control over that account and eliminate the malicious use by the scammer. Simply click on the "Forgot password" link on the sign in page, and you'll receive an email with a unique code that will enable you to change your password. |
|
|
|
The application period for Round 4 has ended.All applications submitted from this point forward will be added to Round 5. We have received 3 applications after the cutoff time of 9:00PM (GMT -6), so those applicants have been placed in Round 5. Those users are Lorin, marcelo01, and max2607.
Funds sent!
I know it's a bech32 transaction but the amount that it cost me seems rediculously low in tx fees for one input/two outputs so if it stays unconfirmed (I used the within 25 blocks feature as I want to not clog the network with a transaction that isn't needed for another few days) then contact me and I'll bump the fee up a bit.
Thank you very much for donating towards this challenge! Low fees won't be a problem; there will always be enough Bitcoin in the escrow to secure the current round. Including yours, we have had a couple donations this week, but before they were received, I funded the escrow address with another $30.
Who's nullius' alt also?
That would be @Meretrix.
Hey Joe, I'll provide again Merits, two merits for 3rd place on round -4  You've turned out to be quite an awesome merit sponsor  I hope to see you around again in this challenge between signature campaign rounds! Thanks again, Geraldo!
|
|
|
|
|
After the 5hr delay I configured for this tumble, I have received my coins with no issues. I used a nested SegWit address to fund the mix, and received it to a nested SegWit address, as well. I went to check the status of my order after my coins were sent to me, and I’m glad to know that there was no reference to the order on your servers. After utilizing the service once, I must say that it is an extremely simple service to use; it’s the simplest out of all the mixers I have previously used.
Needless to say, but I will anyways: I have added this to the list of mixers that I use on a regular basis.
No need to send me any rewards for providing my experience. I just hope that this service is a continued one, and a profitable venture for you. You’ve got my vouch, so I hope you truly take the opportunity to gain some trust and reputation! Great addition to the privacy aspect of bitcoin!
|
|
|
|
I'm excited to hear that we have enough participants to qualify for a 3rd place prize. It is amusing to me that nullius has entered with a fictional character persona, and I believe nullius to be creating an entire fictional universe out of alt accounts. If they are not, then they should be, as the forum would be more entertaining if that were the case. That being said, it is also very interesting to me the new rules pertaining to alternate accounts. I think it is interesting that nullius is guaranteed to not win 1st place (unless there are undisclosed alts), and that someone else has a good shot at the increased prize pool this week.
Have you experienced any problems with the google forms or automating enrollment entirely? You mentioned that someone barely beat another user by .06 points or something like that, and I'm wondering if I missed something in terms of how posts are being graded and scored.
The automation process was flawed within referencing new data from the sheet that was created by the form to the sheet that I have created for round 4. I thought it was automated but I have to manually go in and reference the new entries. It still beats having to type out all of the usernames and user ID’s though. The scoring formula is just a weighted average based on the 4 criteria’s that I grade when reviewing users’s posts, so the difference of 0.06 points is a valid difference! THAT’S how close this round was! |
|
|
|
I think this is more effort than most of the 3rd world shit sub posters will ever dedicate to anything. The advice itself is spot on, but if they were willing to do anything that actually took effort then they wouldn't sell their souls for penny bounty campaigns. Just my 2 cents...
Edit - Woohoo my first Merit Point thanks Jet!
I used to despise the 3rd world shit posters, and for the most part, I still do. But just a reminder that the economic demographic of why Bitcoin was invented is to be able to empower those very 3rd world users the courtesy of a p2p trustless currency, which is everything that Bitcoin stands for. While I do agree that many of those members are bad and contribute a bunch of spam and nonsense to the forums, I have to say that not all of them are bad. I run a challenge that encourages users to improve the quality of their posts and avoid shitty sig campaigns, and much to my surprise, I have seen the quality of posts from these very types of members improve, week in and week out. That being said, it just goes to show that thoughtful posts with advice for these posters do, in fact, work, no matter how minuscule the effectiveness. |
|
|
|
|
I have tried to send some bitcoin for testing, but I cannot get past the popup dialogue that asks me to confirm that the address will only be valid for 24 hours. I am on an iPad, and nothing happens when I click the “Accept” button, nor when I click the “x” to close out the dialogue.
I just refreshed the page and tried again. This time it was successful. I have set a delay of 5 hours for my $10 transaction. I will update this thread again once the tumbling is complete and I receive the chips to the address I provided.
A quick note: what is the point of adding the amount before the payment screen? The payment screen just instructs me to send a minimum/maximum amount of bitcoin, which is contradictory to the btc amount field in the previous screen. Is it just a reference to see what our return will be after the mixing procedure?
|
|
|
|
...
I also lost the draft of an extensive Dev & Tech post, due to a mishap with the ephemeral VM which contains a browser running scripts I distrust. Going forward, I hope that some means can be found to fend off Internet arsonists without impact on legitimate users.
Was it an actual draft that was saved in your drafts ( forum meta) section? Or was it just a draft you were working on locally that wasn't able to be saved to the meta? Either option is pretty messed up, but if it's the former, then there could be much more vulnerabilities and bugs from this cloudflare integration than we see on the surface.
And now, with a bow and my thanks to Joe for running this contest, I must sadly decline to enter Round 4— well, sort of. I may have inadvertently entered a fictional character who has limited purview, and thus far makes few posts. Such is life in the æthereal 0 mists of the.nym.zone: She approached me, offered her PGP key ( 0x69696969), and pleaded with tremulous eyes that she must enter Joe’s contest for the greater glory of her bitcult.faith. What could a flesh-and-blood mortal man say to that? I must stand down, lest she be barred by the alt-account rule. Can she be competitive against people who actually exist? The contest grows more exciting yet! I am curious to see what Joe’s critique will be. I got your note. I just wanted to let you know that I did look through the rules with careful reading and so no mention of alts, which I thought was weird because most sig campaigns have something about that. And then I realized it's becauase you wanted to encourage everyone to not join sig campaigns, so it made sense that you'd want to catch everyone and their alts too in that net.
Anyway, that said, I'm obviously only applying with this account for this round. Btw, the main official rules still don't state anywhere that alts aren't allowed.
I have added the following rule regarding alt accounts to the top post: Alt (alternate) accounts: The only rules that pertain to alt accounts are as follows: You may not enroll in any single round with more than one account simultaneously. If enrolling with an alt account, please provide full disclosure that the account you are enrolling is an alt of another account that has previously entered the challenge. Your alt account(s) will not be eligible to win the first place prize if any other of your accounts have won that prize in the previous round. If an alt account that hasn't been fully disclosed is discovered in the challenge, all accounts related to that alt will be banned from entering in the future. But for full disclosure, please note that @nullius will not be partaking in Round 4, but his alt @Meretrix will be. @Meretrix is not eligible to win the first place prize in Round 4.
@BTCforJoe: very good job, again! I was thinking this thread should find an official sponsor instead of users paying from their own pockets. "Joe's Signatureless Challenge (Round 4) - Sponsored by xxxxxxxx".
Thank you, very much! Although I would love the idea of an ongoing sponsor for this, I really don't mind putting up some cash money for this. I don't want to obligate any individual or business into having to commit to this on a weekly basis. If anyone wants to donate towards the cause, they are more than welcome to at any time, but I will be making a conscious effort not to put much focus on the sponsorship aspect of this challenge, as this should be a great opportunity for members to want to make a better forum experience, not a thread to showcase sponsors  Does that make sense?
@BTCforJoe I truly appreciate your kind words. I really enjoyed participating in the contest, and I wasn't expecting a second place!!
Thank you very for all your efforts, analyzing each participants posts.
You're quite welcome, and like I said in your critique, you really caught me by surprise this week. @nullius literally only beat you by 0.06 points. When @nullius first joined this challenge, I (semi)joked that nobody would ever be able to beat him. Little did I know that just a few short weeks later, the race would have been so close. Great job, again! I have merited this post (HODL) and this post (2FA).
I'm participating again this round:
BitcoinTalk Username: MyLitecoin
Starting Post Count (including this one): 39
Current Rank: Newbie
BTC Address:
Please follow the updated instructions for submitting your application 
I'm not sure anyone really cares about alts on this thread. All we want is good constructive posts here. If a user can do that with more than one account (unless I have this wrong) then they may as well do and promote this scheme further. Unfortunately, because we now have at least one hater on this challenge, I don't want to give them any reason to believe that this challenge is anything else than what it is intended for. Having alts simultaneously enter the challenge would not be fair to other participants (I was specifically thinking of @nullius and his alt when this rule was first being considered).
@btcforjoe, you should try to get everyone to at least change their personal message to promote this campaign.
Nah, I think that if a participant wants to promote it, they can, but it shouldn't be a requirement.
Also, can I sponsor the next two weeks of payments? (with 0.01BTC, do I send this to your escrow address in the op or another address - just in case you don't want there to be too much in that address or can't recieve from bech32 addresses). This is a good campaign and hopefully it'll continue.
Wow, this would be great! You can send it to the escrow address in the top post. Thank you so much for your donation!
Finally, good news, everyone: We officially have 25 registered participants for Round 4, which means that there will be a cash prize of $5 for 3rd place!Good luck, everyone! Registrations close at 9:00PM (GMT -6), so make sure to submit your application! The link to the application form: https://goo.gl/forms/5ZFbI8HmeDkeoqU53 |
|
|
|
However i'd like to leave this challenge as i did not really apply for any kind of signatures yet because i did not even get any information. But you did apply. This is what I had to think long and hard about. You publicly left your application in his thread and clearly stated your terms: I would like to rent my signature to you, as long as you can prepay or escrow the amount.
We can discuss the amount on PM, my only requirements are a signature which im comfortable with wearing, as well as that the funds are on a safe place so im sure that i will get paid after a certain time (like for example a week).
I would not have left the campaign for a paid signature, but however i think that disqualifing all of the posts because of showing a interest of renting a signature is not in my opinion same as acting on it. But by you replying in his thread with specific requirements is the same as acting on it. It's easy to state that you would not leave this challenge because you weren't accepted. But can you understand how it looks to me? I spend hours of time and my own personal money to help users who showed interest in wanting to be a part of something cool that positively affects the forums. But when they go against the core fundamental of what makes this challenge so unique, it's kind of insulting. Whether you were accepted or not, you still applied. Which to me is a big no no. I didn't ban you from the challenge; I just disqualified you from Round 3 because I truly believe that there is a real possibility that you just made a simple mistake. But if you'd really like to stick by your decision and remove yourself from the challenge, I cannot stop you. Thank you for your donation and effort to make this a better challenge for all! I truly appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Round 3: Notes & CritiqueHere are my notes for all of the participants. Please remember that this is my personal opinion, and in no way reflect the views of the moderators, staff, or any other members of this forum. If you don't like it, start your own challenge. These notes can also be seen on the spreadsheet. cheefbuza: All of your posts are straightforward and to the point. You were not repetitive, and I don't find any of them to be shitposts (with the exception of your post about USDT). With the exception of the two posts that I find to be meritorious, however, I don't find your posts to be highly substantial. Your posts, however, are above average and can be used as an example of keeping it "short, sweet, and to the point!" Great job! sull.kureen: While I do like the intent behind several of your posts (trying to steer newbies away from just joining bounties, and using yourself as an example of how you started "incorrectly" on the forums), a lot of your posts are what I consider to be shitposts. English is not your first language, and it is VERY apparent. If you're going to partake in an English-speaking challenge, I would highly advise you to start learning more of it. One thing I will tell you, however, is to stop quoting and thanking original posts in your replies. This is considered to be a shitpost, in my eyes, and it provides no true value to the discussion (whether your post was in the thread or not would have no significant value to it). Great job on your topic about the historical value of Bitcoin, but it's one that has been covered repeatedly in the past. If you're truly willing to continue receiving feedback and learning English, please check out https://www.duolingo.com/course/en/ar/Learn-English-Online and sign up (free!) to spend 5 minutes a day (or more) to learn it! epidose: I like the overall gist and essence of your messages; I just wish that you didn't participate in so many of the threads that are obviously there to shill member ranks and activity. Your posts remind me of that nerd in a high school classroom that is trying to do your school work when there's a substitute teacher is present, but all the kids around you are goofing off. You're obviously doing the right thing, but you're in the wrong place and time to do it. Please be more mindful of where you decide to post, as posting in the Bitcoin/Altcoin Discussion topics that you've chosen just means that your well thought-out reply gets lost in a sea of shitposts. You obviously spend a lot of time on your posts, which is great, but I'd love to see more references and sources of examples to support your ideas on some occasions. Keep it up, and try to find less "spammy" topics; your posts are too good for them. charlie137: You make a lot of definitive statements without supporting references/sources, and you also make a lot of blanket statements that really don't contribute to the ongoing discussion within the topic you're posting. It's obvious that you have above average knowledge of technical aspects of cryptocurrencies (good luck with AXE!), so I'd like to see you apply more of that to become a semi-source of knowledge and authority about topics you decide to post in, even if it's your own. Lately, you've been posting in megathreads with one-liners that provide no (or very little) value. This really hurt your score for the week, and I KNOW you have the potential to write some amazing content, as is evident by many of your posts from your history. This just shows laziness to me, if I'm being honest. asrifki99: Does not qualify: There are no active posts within the duration of Round 3bitmover: Wow. You came out of nowhere. You are obviously very knowledgeable about Bitcoin/crypto, and you navigate the forums here very well. Your posts indicate that you have users' best interest at heart, and I haven't seen a single shitpost from this round. Other participants, please take a look at @bitmover's post history since March 18. Their ability to do outside research and stay relevant is way above par, and if I may be honest, they are the newest user that I am proud to have representing this challenge. Amazing job, @bitmover! MyIota: First of all, your ten-year prediction format and post is amazing. AMAZING. I really enjoy your writing style and opinions throughout your posts, but be careful; some of your posts are in borderline megathreads that were designed to shill and rank member accounts. You have to be careful where you post, and I believe your posts are good enough to where they should not be posted in threads where the OP and other posters will never/rarely return... I also truly appreciate your willingness and desire to make the forums a better place, as is seen on your stances on the merit system. Kudos to you. In the future, when posting outside references, try to include a link or image to backup your claims/posts; it will just provide that much more validity to your posts. Overall, great job, and you're another contender to watch out for in the future! MyLitecoin: This is an obvious alt to @MyIota. If you would like for me to critique this account, please let me know. But be warned of two things: (1) If you'd prefer for me to critique and score this account, you will lose and forfeit your score for @MyIota and (2) please do not enroll more than one account at a time in future rounds. Because the discussion of allowing alts was being considered during the time you sent your applications, neither of your accounts will be disqualified from this round. De4ted: Your posts are below average. They are either trolling or unsubstantial. Your English is passable, but it's not great. This makes it hard to convey high quality posts, so if you want to start posting more substantially, I would recommend that you start spending 5 minutes a day to learn English ( https://www.duolingo.com/course/en/ar/Learn-English-Online). Great job on finding the users who are obviously merit-farming, and thank you for adding it to the list of suspected merit abusers. In the future, please do not post in topics that were clearly designed to shill member ranks and promote shitposts. vlad230: Your post in the "Is it a bug" thread shows me that you can think outside the box, and that you care about privacy. I added that post as a meritorious post because of your out-of-the-box thinking, and validity to how a private person would want to anonymize their online activity display. It's a short and simple post, but reveals the type of mental capacity you have for privacy. Kudos. You've also shown a lot of interest in helping others and helping yourself. You've posted in a lot of Merit threads, and started your own service, which is great to help other users rank their accounts. But I'd like to see more activity in other boards besides mainly Meta and your topic. Your knowledge about altcoin is great, so why not help support some other discussions regarding mining activities and technical help? I see a lot of great potential for you; keep it up! butka: Another user to watch out for! You show a lot of potential, and your willingness and desire to learn about and contribute to the technical aspect of Bitcoin/altcoins is endearing. You're a great addition to this challenge, and you're one of the top contenders. Your posts are yet another example of what it means to be "short, sweet, and to the point". It's obvious that you're new to Bitcoin compared to a lot of other users, but you display some great knowledge and are asking all the right questions. You're going to integrate very nicely with the forums. Keep it up, and I hope you decide to stick around the challenge for a while! flip4flop: Another solid week for you. Your stance on Merit and users and these forums is growing stronger in what I believe to be the right direction, and I'm glad that you're continuing to partake in conversations using your opinion. I know that your strengths lie in altcoin mining, but your score was affected because of your limited reach by sticking to only a few subcategories of the forum this week. Part of the overall full crypto experience, in my opinion, is to branch out and either (a) offer insight and knowledge or (b) request insight and knowledge in all aspects of the community. Either way, you've got some great posts, and I love your meritorious post in response to a newbie question. Keep it up! yazher: Disqualified. Posts are solely in merit or bounty threads. This does not match the intent of this challenge.buyandsale: Does not qualify: There are only 6 posts within the duration of Round 3 Blue Tyrant: This is the round where I see you familiarizing with the forum and add to your already extensive knowledge of how it works. I like the way that you've started building character for your account, and the manner in which you interact in topics with other users. While a lot of your technical knowledge is lacking in this round, you've contributed in a fun and charismatic fashion across multiple boards of the forums. I think your previous rounds have set the bar high for you. While you did get to undoubtedly make some new friends this round, you've made far fewer exceedingly substantial posts than other participants, which hurt your score. That's fine, as I still consider you a highly-contributing member of the forums. r1s2g3: While most of your content is original, and several of your posts took a good amount of time and thought to produce, I think you can do much better. No offense, but the way in which you choose topics to answer is carefully thought out, but overall, your posts lack major contribution. Maybe it's because of your limited English, as it's apparent that English is not your first language, but there are so many posts that I wish you would have detailed more than just making blanket statements and posting your reference/source links. While none of your posts are bad, they could be embellished a bit more in order for you to score higher according to my [mysterious] criteria. Keep it up! Verde_Mantis: Disqualified. This user joined a paid signature campaign after applying to this challenge.dmonrey002: Besides your posts in Trading Discussion, your posts include a lot of definitive replies that would be better supported if you backed them up with references. You shouldn't make statements like "One example, if I'm right is..." This is considered unsubstantial and provides no value to the topic. However, your knowledge in trading and investing seems to be above par of the average user here. Do you have a background in trading fiat currencies? You've shown initiatives to help other users understanding trading terminology, which is a great step towards showing that you care about wanting others to benefit from Bitcoin/crypto. Just be careful as not to give financial advice without providing some form of liability clause. You don't want to be responsible if someone follows your advice and loses in the market. While English is not your first language, you are a rare example of someone who gets their point across in the majority of your posts. Sellingaccs: Ugh. You've applied to rent your signature space to someone during this round (reference: http://archive.is/9NFuu#selection-6399.0-6401.230). While wearing a paid signature at any point during this challenge is clearly written as a no-no in the rules, I guess I didn't specify that you shouldn't apply for any paid signatures either. But this should be obvious that it goes against the very nature of this challenge, which is why I have made the decision to disqualify you for this round. I'm sorry, @Sellingaccs, this was a tough decision, but I will state that after giving your post history a brief scan, you would have scored above average, but I honestly don't believe you would have ranked if given the full criteria for the scoring process.detector: You've posted in a lot of speculative threads which I find to be solely for the purpose of shilling member ranks and posts. You have also made a lot of blanket and safe statements that don't provide any true substance to the topic at hand. Your posts wouldn't make much of a difference to the overall topic if they were removed from it. Please try not to post definitive answers like "Yes it's true because..." if you cannot support your opinion with facts. You can't claim that something is true based on your opinion by saying that statement, and then following it up with words/phrases like "maybe", "some groups", "is basically" and "may have". In the future, if you are posting opinion, rather than fact, don't make it sound like you are posting a fact. I know that English isn't your first language, and that has a huge factor in how you respond to posts, so if this critique doesn't make any sense to you, then I'm reluctant to say that this challenge isn't really for you. Let me know what you think. draculaaa: You don't have enough posts outside of topics that are about bounties in order for me to be able to critique you. The few posts that you have made are horrible, and it's obvious that you just joined this challenge for a chance to win some money. I will not waste my time with scoring you. vishnu_g: Does not qualify. There are only 6 posts within the duration of Round 3 (5 of which are in bounty threads)Toughit: Does not qualify. There is only 1 post made within the duration of Round 3, and it was in the challenge thread. WHERE DID YOU GO, TOUGHIT?!nullius: Man. You had me worried at the beginning of the week. I know the CloudFlare issue is a huge one for you, as a proponent for security and privacy. So seeing posts repeatedly about the issue had me concerned that you would not be able to deliver. But you did. Not only did you provide humorous posts, spam/scam warnings, and viable solutions for the current meta issue overload, you threaded it all together with the development and technical aspect of Bitcoin. Reviewing your posts, I actually learned a ton. One thing I should remind you of, however, is that often times, you elevate yourself to another level. I don't mean this as a compliment; some of your posts tend to resonate with a very limited audience (not your technical posts; rather, your personal humor posts), which I am a part of, for the most part. Some of your posts had me literally o.O'ing in speechlessness with literally no way of being able to score them lol. Either way, your posts are extremely entertaining to follow. You really are a tough act to follow.
|
|
|
|
The winners of Round 3 have been selected! Winners, please post the links to your post(s) that you believe to be the most meritorious. If the merit sponsors agree, they will merit that/those post(s) to award you for winning this challenge. Merit sponsors, please post when you have awarded the winners. If you do not agree with the winners' selections, please use your discretion to choose a post (or multiple posts, if applicable) to award merit to.
Congratulations to the winners of Round 3! Overall, great job again this week, folks! You guys really stepped up the game, as is evident with the 4+ hours it took me to critique and score this round.
Round 3 Merit Stats: This round, a total of 98 Merits were earned by 13 participants, for an overall average of 7.54 Merits earned from those participants. Great job! |
|
|
|
Is there any issue with the spreadsheet? I tried to view it but it wants me to login.
I have disabled it during the scoring process. I will enable it again after the winners are announced. I'm almost done, but I have come to the final two participants, which just happens to be Toughit and nullius. This may take a few hours... Just kidding, I'll be done within a half an hour. brb. |
|
|
|
So many great participants this week. I am about halfway through the critique and review process. I'll update again as the winners are decided!
-snip-
Dude, just shut the fuck up already. You've tried to make your point, failed miserably, and now you're beating a dead horse. I'm done being polite to you. Please keep your opinion to yourself. I am not breaking any rules; if I was, I would have been reprimanded already. Just because you don't agree with what I'm doing does not give you the right to come and tarnish this thread with your repetitive babble. If you truly have a problem with it, message me in private so we could have a civil discussion, rather than you trying to convey your bullshit upon users that have already disagreed with your opinion. Your replies here are now borderline trolling. They are repetitive and slanderous in nature. While I respected your opinion before, I do not now. If you feel that I'm breaking rules with the way that merits are distributed here, simply report me to a moderator. Until then, please kindly fuck off. |
|
|
|
ROUND 3 IS OVER & ROUND 4 HAS BEGUN! Get your applications in before tomorrow if you haven't already!I'm just tallying up the entries from Round 3. Give me a couple hours, and the results will be posted here!
Hi Joe, thank you.
I joined Round 4
BitcoinTalk Username: zangleerb
Starting Post Count (including this one): 175
Current Rank: Jr.member
BTC Address: 14UHdB9wcN2xtaDma65AFZMUNMUGN6HgLa
Good luck to me to get merit.
Please follow instructions in order to submit your application.
|
|
|
|
Can you please re check this google form. I filled the form once but I am finding link of my profile from excel row number 5 to 10. Also I am not finding the application of other people who claimed to fill the form before me. You're in. The form isn't automated to the spreadsheet that I have. I thought I had automated it last night, but it's apparently not working for new applicants; just ones who have filled out the form before I tried to automate it. |
|
|
|
~ You are the one full of bullshit and fairly apparent fantasy, karmicpanther. I imagine that you are living in grandma's basement too with all your "tough talk" and your ongoing (double down) pie in the sky proposals.  ~ Agree with your stance about that guy. However, I think it might be better if you use snip un-used, un-necessary contents in your thread to save more space and make your thread become more comfortable for readers. To be honest, I have to scroll my computer mouse down for a while due to your over-quoted thread. It actually hurts my fingers. Best regards, Quoting is di c tionary. am i doing it right? |
|
|
|
I think you should suggest books to read, If a non-english speaker went to read huckleberry fin, or the original treasure island I think that would be counter productive.
I don't understand how you can suggest reading books if you don't understand the language how is it supposed to help
You think I could just pick up a book in spanish and read it and better understand it?
No one is here to hold the hands of members who won't take the time to properly learn English in order to post on an English-speaking forum. If you don't have the basic knowledge or capability of learning how to use Google to find what you're searching for, then you don't belong on the forums in the first place. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=easy+books+to+read+to+learn+english
Thank you sir for this very informative guidelines, it didn't waste my time reading this topic cause I've learned something new which I can apply in making a high quality post. It is also true that making a topic doesn't require a long one, what matter is it should be constructive and informative. Not only did you include the entire quoted post of the OP, you obviously didn't read it. You addressed TMAN as "sir", which he highly frowns upon. It's also in the very third sentence of his post. You are a classic example of the type of user he is recommending not to be. Quoting a post to make your post appear longer is not fooling anyone, and you shouldn't do it. You stated that you learned something new by reading his post, but you obviously did not, as your entire post is not constructive or contributive to the topic. In fact, if your post wasn't posted at all, it would have absolutely no effect on the direction of this thread (except for my obvious reply to you).
Alternatively, the subject of this thread could be "TMAN'S guide to not making shitty posts"
Ironically, the two posts directly after yours were nothing but shit |
|
|
|
Just want to confirm that payment was received via Friends or Family via PayPal for the total amount of $200. I have sent the user 0.02205279 BTC, valued at $188, after charging a 6% premium rate above preev.com raters for the time the payment was received. Here's the transaction: https://blockchain.info/tx/7c0d2013862357ecbdbac63dd938081901e73b6d9ffeeb02aad9216dfcb919ceWe conducted the deal via email correspondence, and I will leave a positive feedback for now, which I'm hoping that I will not have to update once the 180-day window for payment reversals via PayPal expires. |
|
|
|
To apply for Round 4, please fill out this Google Form and submit your application.
YOU MUST SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION EVERY WEEK THAT YOU WISH TO PARTICIPATE.Additionally (and I know this is going to be a pain in the ass), if you could go back and delete your old applications, it would help prune this thread. I made the mistake of not making this a self-moderated thread, so I cannot go back and delete the posts for you. Moving forward, I will create a new form every week for applications. If you feel uncomfortable with using the form, such as for privacy reasons, please send me a message so that I can personally add you to the applicants spreadsheet. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
Just about a day remains for the round, and I must say that this week is going to be the hardest week for me to grade, by far. We have some real quality content that has been produced thus far, and I can’t wait to see who wins! Great job, everyone!
I’m adding a form for applications for Round 4, so I’ll post it up when it’s ready.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
