Well in my particular case, I would not have merited those posts, so I don't feel the need to give my sMerits to OP.  He either needs to wait for his source supply to get replenished or ask Theymos for some more, like I did.  Know what I'm saying?  As I said, I'm not yelling at OP for meriting shitposts--but I'm also not going to offer help in this case other than with my words.

My thoughts exactly, but I'm sure OP still wants Theymos to see this.  I think.

OP, unless you present some proof of a scam, this thread is pretty much useless.  I get that you're angry, but this section is for "officially" reporting scams, and that means including some proof with your accusation, i.e., it's not just a section to bitch about the scamminess of a particular exchange.  My suggestion is to either fill out the proper scam accusation form, which can be found in the stickies on the first page of the section or lock the thread. 

I've never heard of this one either.  I guess we're really in the Wild West stage of crypto, where anyone can create their own exchange in countries where the laws are lax about such things.

I agree with you, but there's limits.  If we have a merit source who's giving merits to shitposts, then the system becomes a little more useless.  If all merit sources did this, the system would be completely useless.  The whole reason we have the merit system is to suppress shitposters from ranking up, so if sources just give them out with no consideration to how good the post is....what's the point?

Maybe that's the reason.  I haven't looked at his meriting history, but he got selected to be a merit source and therefore I have to assume he earned that position and doesn't make this a habit.  Hopefully.

Edit:
It's not unless it's a pattern of rewarding shitposters, which I don't see here.  If I thought OP was abusing the merit system, my posts would be quite different.  In my mind I picture him as a hooka pipe-smoking hippie spreading free love around as if it were the 1960s.  As I said, if he got made a merit source in the first place he's probably not a serial merit mis-user.  True, we've had a couple of those but Theymos picks them pretty well.

Well I did the same thing in Meta, but it was directed to Theymos--and it was sMerits I wanted, not merits (though some members were kind enough to merit my OP).  This OP looks to be asking the same here, or at least that's how I saw it initially.

Edit:
I tend to agree with you there, because if shitposters see merits being given out so freely in a certain thread, guess what happens?  Yeah, they flock there to scoop them up.  I think there were some people following QuestionAuthority around due to his generosity in the sections and threads he frequented.  But whatever, it's Theymos's call on this one.

Wow, I guess you've got that Speculation section covered.  And that prediction thread in particular, but a lot of those posts are kinda garbage IMO.  What's the deal with that thread and you giving all your sMerits out there?

Edit:
LOL.  There are many strange birds in the forest, and there is room for all of them.  Didn't know you were a merit source, but pleasure to meet you, sir/madam.

See, I would agree with this but how the hell do you prove that?  It also wouldn't make sense unless FJ really thought OP was going to lose everything.  Otherwise it would make more sense for the casino to step in and put a stop to it before a problem like this arose.  The only thing the casino would have to gain would be OP's original deposit, right?  I mean in the case that FJ knew it would eventually deny his claim to his winnings and let him play anyway.  

I don't know if FJ would do that; if it would be worth the hassle for them; and how anyone could show their intent to do that.  Again, I'm not really taking FJ's side, but I'm looking at OP's assertion with a skeptical eye.

Edit:
You got that right.  And what DarkStar_ said basically what I said, the whole thing rests on whether they knew about the bug and chose not to fix it and let OP continue to play in the hopes that he'd lose his original deposit.  I'm not sure a reputational smear is worth that for a casino, but who knows. 

I'm not a gambler and never used FortuneJack, but that sounds like something a casino would do--especially a crypto one.

My question is whether OP was gambling with funds he obtained via the bug when he hit the jackpot, and whether that's acceptable or not.  I honestly don't have a hard and fast opinion on that, but it would seem to be that if this was the case (that he didn't legitimately win the money he used to win the jackpot), FJ is in the right.  And that's what their argument is, too. 

What would happen if you were in a real casino and knew a slot machine was broken in such a way that the casino no longer had the edge, and the casino didn't happen to know that.  You use the broken machine to win some money that you later bet on the blackjack table--and you win big there.  Should the casino honor any of your bets?  I really don't know the rules, but it seems sketchy on the gambler's part in that case, because he knows he's playing a broken machine.  Sure you could say, "Well, that's not my problem, it's the casino's" but that doesn't sound right to me.

With what was presented here, I think it's at best way too early to start calling FJ sig campaigners as scam promoters, especially when there are long-standing grudges obviously coming out and the typical mudslinging as a result.  If OP broke FJ's rules, he shouldn't keep the money.  If FJ doesn't have any rules covering such a situation, they should pay out.  I'm just going to see how this goes down.

That's what all new DT2 members need to know, and they need to be prepared to defend every feedback they leave.  It's an almost certainty that if you leave a neg on someone, it'll get challenged either by PM or in a thread, so all the new DT2 members should be prepared for that.  I'm pretty sure DT1 knows this stuff already.

Leave appropriate feedback with a valid reference link if it's a neg, and be careful who you give positives to.  I've already said that, but it's the best advice IMO.  Nobody is forcing any new DT2 members to start leaving feedbacks, so hopefully none of you feel pressured to do so.

I did study your post history and concluded that you're not the original owner of the account.  That means you either bought it or hacked it, and all of the early trusts are thus invalid.  You have an older account with a lot of positive trust that you didn't earn, and that's dishonest.  People who check your trust wall think they're dealing with the member who owned the account in 2014, but that clearly isn't the case.

This is an excellent example of why I don't trust account sellers and sold accounts.  Can you imagine the havoc it would wreak here if someone got their hands on a DT account and started to leverage that trust in order to scam?  That's not the case with you, but do the thought experiment yourself.  That's just one of the problems with account sales.  You most definitely deserve the red trust.

Um.  I don't think Theymos is making a one day anti-sale on copper memberships.  Pretty sure it's going to be the new price after Friday.

Given how easy it is for Newbies to start wearing a signature just by buying a copper membership, I think it's a good move for the forum to do this, regardless of where the funds go (forum finances are none of my concern).  I don't think it'll keep Newbies from buying them all that much, but at least it gives them more incentive not to screw things up by copy/pasting or whatever.

Agree 100%, and I would also add that OP's hierarchy seems to be aimed directly at cryptohunter, as it seems to be on the money (don't know about Theymos responding to him, however).  So I don't think trolling starts off as ignorance--it starts off as trying to get a rise out of people, which is exactly why you should not give them the response they're looking for.  

Yes, I think self-moderated threads ought to be an option everywhere that makes sense for them to be.  In Auctions, obviously you don't want that, but in Meta I think it's reasonable.  As far as 'freedom of speech' goes, I'm all for it but this is a forum and not a government imposing limits.  It always amazes me that people think the 1st Amendment to the US constitution means that one private citizen can't censor another.  That's not it at all.  It's a protection from the government itself doing the censorship, and not even under all circumstances.

I will say that one of the things I really like about bitcointalk is the lack of censorship as far as language and ideas go.  However, when you've got someone derailing threads as much as cryptoscunter has been lately--AND with all the shitposts being flung about--self-moderated threads are extremely useful.  

There was a consensus a while back that one of the ways to fight spam was to make new threads self-modded, but it never really caught on as a widespread thing.  I think it should have, and I've made most of my recent threads self-moderated.  Guess what?  I haven't actually had to delete more than 1-2 posts out of all of them.  Bounty hunters, even if they're interested in the thread, probably won't post in it because they know there's a strong chance of that post getting deleted (and thus they won't get paid for it).  If there was anything on bitcointalk resembling a spammer-spray, that would be it.

Edit:
For a solid example of trolling, please see whatever it is that's written in the post below this one.  I don't even have to read it to know.

Oh yeah, I think that account has definitely changed hands.  He used to post in perfect English in 2014 with stuff like this:


And then this in Oct. 2014:

....followed by a huge posting gap that ended in Dec. 2016 with this post:

After that, English is broken as all hell, as demonstrated by this post:

Will tag the account now.

Then I would think that TMAN's feedback ought to say something different instead of how it reads now.  Hell, if he's using a hacked account I'll tag him myself, but that's not the reason TMAN gave.

I would suggest not handing out positive feedbacks very liberally when you're on DT2.  That's something I learned, because by doing so you're going to be turning that member's trust green and you don't want to do that unless you're sure that person isn't going to use the trust to scam someone or otherwise misuse it.  That's something all of us know happens here, especially with all the account sales going on.

Other than that, just try to use good judgement when leaving any feedback, and be prepared for a barrage of PMs when you tag anyone.  Try to be thick-skinned if you aren't already, and don't misuse your position.  Those are the best words of advice I can think of for you or any of the new DT members.  

These are some crazy-ass changes, but I think they'll work out eventually.

I would just shrug shit like that off, because it's going to happen.  Also, leave reference links to your feedbacks as much as you can--without a valid reference link (or explanation in the feedback itself), the feedback is kind of iffy.

I haven't read this whole thread yet and never used them, but they're out of New Zealand, right?  That would seemingly be a good thing, since I'm pretty sure NZ has laws governing how exchanges have to conduct themselves.  What I'm thinking about is some kind of insurance policy that an exchange would have to buy in order to handle people's money or some sort of plan in place in case of a hacking.  
Am I way off base here?  I'm not sure what would happen if an exchange like Coinbase got hacked like this, but I'm fairly certain the US government wouldn't let them just not pay people their money.  Having said that, I don't know what the laws are exactly for this kind of situation, either in the US or in NZ.

Yikes.  So this is either an exit scam or a real hacking.  Something tells me it's the latter, but we'll see.  As far as this event's effect on bitcoin (or ETH), I doubt it'll be anything that lasts.  It's not like this is a unique incident in the history of crypto.

Oh, so you're saying I shouldn't store all of my bitcoin on the NYSE?  OK, I'll think about your great advice. 

I've seen some really funny cartoon-type, self-written parodies on youtube using the text-to-speech and I wouldn't be disappointed if someone made a very good one.  That actually might be a better idea than a live action one IMO.  There's got to be software that allows you to make one, because I've seen a few made by different people--not sure what the name is.  I had one video that I liked, but now I can't find it.  It had to do with ER nurses vs. critical care nurses and it was funny as all hell.

Someone please wake me up when it's time to cough up the merits for a video.  As I said, I'll be happy to be generous as long as it's funny and well-made.

I stopped right here, looking at the posts of the user you said was under-merited:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=732010.  The first few pages of his post history are just his name in Games & Rounds, and that goes back to at least November.  Any other "posts" he made are just stupid thank you's or other garbage.  I'm assuming that's one of your alt accounts, because no one in their right mind would think that account's posts are merit-worthy.

Having said that, I don't think you ought to have gotten a neg for it.  That's between TMAN and you, however.  I would suggest to TMAN that Theymos doesn't want shitposters tagged anymore and although this is somewhat of a different situation, it's in the same ballpark.  

Well yeah, that's exactly what it looks like--and unless you can prove what you say happened (unlikely), I doubt your ban is going to get lifted.  What you wrote certainly could be true, but in most people's eyes it's more likely that you got banned and decided to just create a new account to continue with the social media spamming.  Seriously, what would you think if someone told you a story like that?

That's the best advice to give, though I have no confidence whatsoever that people will follow it given how easy it is to pirate stuff.  Me, I'm happy with old-school methods of entertainment--buying DVDs or just watching what's on Youtube. 

That would be something if Wikipedia actually did accept crypto for donations, and I'm really surprised that they don't.  I've seen their genuine banner, and it always made me scratch my head that they don't take bitcoin at least.

Yep, and for me as a relatively non-techie guy, this scares the pants off of me.  Fortunately for me I don't often download legitimate programs much less some sketchy torrent files that I wouldn't be able to protect myself against.  I'm sure more computer literate people would be able to, but if I relied on those in order to watch movies I'd be in serious trouble.  Thanks but no thanks.

I thought this might be for going off-topic in someone's ban appeal thread, which you did yesterday.  You started an off-topic rant about bitcoin, and it wasn't called for.  Start your own thread if you've got something to say.  Even if you hate bitcoin and think it's a scam and that bitcoiners are a stupid lot, it's not likely your posts or thread are going to get deleted just for your opinions--but you've got to be on-topic within a thread, at least a little. 

We all can stray from the topic at hand at times (guilty myself), but the stuff you wrote in the ban appeal thread was obviously the wrong place for it.  I don't usually report posts for being off-topic, but yours were obviously in the wrong place.