You must be of the philosophy, "turncoats and mercenaries are vermin worse than our enemy's strongest soldiers".

I'm sure that high-quality posts can be rewarded and that you will find a suitable topic to write a thoughtful opinion.

Otherwise, you can pay if you think that it's more worth your while. Those are the two options: write good posts and hope that people merit you, or bribe theymos.

They stopped counting then, which is why that was the peak. Scroll down into the breakdown and you'll see that the "Users Online" column stays at zero up until April 2013.

In 4 more posts, you will rank up to Jr. Member. Make sure they're constructive.

After your activity is updated to 30, you will have the privilege of posting images.

Gambling regulations. There are a few other reasons to use the procedure - don't assume that definitions are exclusively restricted to the first thing that appears.

If you really want to be pedantic about it, you could say that it's a KYC-like procedure.

The implication is that the casino should allow users to sign up with fake/random details and later verify their KYC with completely separate details. Do you foresee any opportunity for someone to use KYC information that is not their own?

The suspicious action is the use of conflicting details.
I don't see why this falls outside of the bucket of "breaking rules", though it seems like you're using it arbitrarily.

---

Does this bonus even require a deposit, anyway?

All the nonsense pedantry over what is considered shilling or not shilling doesn't matter when the end-goal of the entire pursuit is to place the idealized negative semantic association of "shill" upon the grouping you decide corresponds to the given parameters.

If the terminology used to define a set is so flexible that there are many connotations to vast groups of individuals, then the clear solution is to increase the granularity and restrict one's definition to a new term.

If a casino enables users to "recorrect" their KYC details, then there is nothing preventing a malicious agent from registering as many accounts as they wanted to guarantee a result and later using KYC verification on the successful free spins.

If there aren't even more than a handful of topics on the first few pages of Altcoin boards, then I doubt it.

Better yet, try to find a quality thread in the Altcoin section about DeFi.

Depends on the type of report you have to deal with.



When it comes to the Altcoin sections, you can effectively go on a crusade against the one-liner spam they pump out. I believe that in one month, I'd queued enough reports to have the script (even with modified, extended time constraints) completely break. Moderators could probably point out a few occasions where I'd double-reported posts.

---

The reality is that these users have such poor post history that one is typically able to report consecutive pages of content at a time.

As a function of priority, though, malware and directly-damaging threats are always at the top for reports - that's why I used the [P#] indicator for page-wide reports. I would say that reporting 200 shitposts is about equivalent in impact (and possibly time) to the reporting of malware.

Any 'boring topic' is a topic not worth discussion, and if it is not worth discussion then it should never have appeared in the first place. Given that most of the threads here run through their lifespan of value within a few days (if even that), you are probably best off reporting every single post you come across: I'm guessing at least 90% accuracy!

Unless, of course, it's not the topic who is boring, but you.

Me brain retire go on soft vacation so hand do work now. Think big word not good for talk to many people. Feel bad about self so use smart man words to write. Not speak fancy ship man sound good so look at other word boxes to take. Me get bounty now! Too hard learn word making, I keep do this. It good for me and I keep make new me's for more bounty.

Surely, someone begging for money from charity isn't in the position to return the amount you need for a loan, right? Especially considering you're apply to a signature campaign, yet at the same time offering your account - contradictory pursuits toward one singular goal.

I don't know what happens in 3 weeks that allows you the opportunity to give up an additional 0.003 on top of the original amount - how you earn it, despite having asked for a lesser amount earlier (and for a longer duration). Your circumstances only make me predict a default, not an actual successful loan.

You could measure your prices fixed in BTC, but for some reason I have a feeling you wouldn't have sold the watch for 7 BTC a month after the watch released.

Bitcoin has appreciated to where the 7 BTC price tag puts a premium that is over 4x the original price of the watch.

You misunderstand because of the punctuation absence: i_am_viral is the ex-world's best athlete, that is, the athlete of the future in 4 years prior ^{or is it later} to their anti-genocidal temporal disconnect.

_{Do not use your pedantic scoffs to exacerbate your hostility toward such a regal figure}

I also expect it to be an extremely simple process (relative to the lender) to retrieve the account after the fact, to default without giving up the collateral.

The possibility of letting people fall prey to red-trusted, higher-ranked individuals is there and IIRC this situation has occurred in the past.

Frankly, anyone who dismisses a post based on trust is probably the same idiot that will assume that high trust = knowledgeable. They might also do the same if yer spelin is bed or grammar suck.

I would actually argue that it would be more useful to leave counters after the changes since the trust scores are themselves diluted by the extra members in the DT circle, the pressure to switch to one's own custom list, as well as the entire premise of flags.

Considering Instagram is owned by Facebook, that isn't hard to believe.

The other important thing to note about these social media platforms is that one primary marketplace for the consumer is under the umbrella of a social investment. If you aren't on these platforms that have received the first-mover bias of the initial growth then it makes sense to join the most populous platform (when a typical person does not really discern between large entities and consequences of use). Moreover, you are confronted with the exclusion of a "community/tribe" of your social circles which (presumably) take place on these platforms.

I would like you to create a way to implement a petition that is not prone to Sybil attacks or centralization, without the use of any analog-based verification.

If the forum followed a democratic pursuit in regard to rule-making then you would see it fall to the ground. How many accounts do you think would allow for the proliferation of increasingly shady scams?