That is the minimum deposit amount; the minimum amount you can put into a FaucetBOX admin account to pay users. The minimum withdrawal amount for normal users is still 0.00013BTC.

When taking that screenshot I was using Firefox 48.0. I have also tested it on Google Chrome Version 37.0.2062.120 and the ad shows correctly while not logged in as a newbie and logged out, in addition to Chrome on Android where the font size is also correct (though the ad is broken regardless).

I don't think it's the ad that's the problem. For some reason, it looks like the font size in OP's ad is large when it shouldn't be (on the logos and such) which probably causes it to break out of it's intended area. For example, if you look at what OP sees:

Compared to what I see (and how the ad is intended to look):

You can see that each small picture made up of characters is not sized correctly, causing the ad to malfunction.

I know it's rare, but some people do speak English to a decent level on this forum.

How dare he buy two raffle tickets to people he speaks regularly to in an IRC channel! What a heartless son of a bitch!

Ah yes, Zepher. One of the highest ranking members of the staff team.. Wait a second!

It's also laughable that you don't have the balls to post from your main account.

It is, however IMO that isn't a similar situation. Of course it is reasonable to remove trust from someone if they make questionable trust decisions, I just don't think that one rating one one user is enough to warrant this. However this is up to personal interpretation, so I won't try to use it against you.
I also find it strange that you are using this as an argument, and yet still have direct positive trust for users such as Spondoolies-Tech. You're fine leaving trust for people who have not followed through with sales commissions, but considered removing positive trust for someone who was linked to someone who trusted someone that you didn't like? It seems a bit backwards to me.

I'm upset that you told a user "Remove your trust or I will do it for you" and see nothing wrong with that. If the roles were reversed and you were told the same thing, would you honestly accept that because he was nice about it? Regardless, I believe a lot of this is a misunderstanding and considering certain things I see no point in arguing about it further.

However, I'm also confused about what you mean by your trust network. Are you talking about the string of positive trusts (You->Mitchell->RHavar->TwitchySeal) or are you talking about the DT network? If the prior, at what point does your 'network' end?

Please don't throw underhanded insults at me; I have done no such thing to you.

This is irrelevant IMO. Regardless of whether you tell him your actions does not change the fact that you were doing to said actions, nor does it change your motive for doing them.

Once again, it does not deter from the fact that you were going to remove him (and another party with no relevance to the conflict) because he didn't agree with you on the trustworthiness of a user and would not change a rating he had given. While it may be courteous, it is still trying to get your own way through force or threats.

I, in addition to many others I'm sure, accept the apology given for that specifically. I can understand that, especially in heated moments, people can say or do things that they later regret and won't hold it against you. The thing that bothers me specifically is some of your other behavior you don't see as wrong.

The things is though, at least on this forum, those messages are in no way private and are not said to be so. PM stands for 'Personal Message', not 'Private Message'. While you may not agree with this definition, it is not fair to use this as an argument against others.

Personally, I do not see anything that TwitchySeal did as being in the wrong. Regardless however, it isn't fair to assume people share the same notion of trust as you and further challenge them should they not.

You challenged RHavar with removal from the trust system VIA Mitchell should he not comply with what you were asking him to do.
Without possibly twisting words, you said that you would remove Mitchell (and by extension RHavar) from the trust network if he did not remove his positive trust on TwitchySeal. This is trying to get your agenda through force or threats; quite literally the definition of extortion.

The difference being that you hold a lot more base on this forum when compared to someone like TwitchySeal. A negative trust rating from members like that shows nothing to the majority of users here, you make a significant mark on people's reputation.

I do not have anything against you and I hope that this was just a lapse of judgement, but I don't think that you are in the right with the majority of things you are saying.

In the Off Topic section. While I agree this was a very good move, the spam has since moved to different sections. More needs to be done to the same tune as this.

While this does exist, what percentage of the community do you think uses it? My guesses are >5%. This is insignificant.
In addition, while it does make signature advertising less attractive for companies to use, it is not effective enough. This is shown by the fact we are still having this problem after these fixes were introduced.

Whatever solution is implemented would obviously need to be criticized by staff and other members of the community. I'm sure that Lauda understands this, and doesn't expect that a solution will be implemented on a whim.
Regardless of this, a solution is still needed. While the things you listed previously do help, they are not enough.

That is debatable. Whilst we don't have that sort of mindless spam, we still have a significant problem about users saying nothing of any interesting in their post and assuming it is alright due to it's length.

It should be implemented in all subsections of the forum, not just a select few. There is no place on this forum that shitty, nonconstructive posts and threads should be accepted.

Not every account on here is low ranked, and higher ranked accounts can make more Bitcoin with less effort needed. It is highly likely that people own several of these higher ranked accounts in order to get large rewards for little effort.
Please do not post if you have no idea what you are talking about; you are part of the problem by doing so.

I don't add faucets to this list as there is nothing to invest into. This is made clear on the OP:
Apologies.

Added to the list, thank you for reporting.

Providing that work is done on the quality of posts here, I can't say I would see the need for this to come into place. While account trading is inherently untrustworthy, and should by no means be supported by anyone, providing that an account follows the rules of the forum and has no prior reputation (E.G Positive trust/DT etc) I do not see a problem with it changing hands.
In addition, I feel that it may simply be useless work for Staff members; if the seller has any sense he will sell the account using an anonymous Newbie account. Banning this will do nothing but waste the time of Staff.

The fact that this misconception exists however shows that it is a problem, regardless of the stupidity of it.

Good. What message does he get when he tries logging in?
Is it possible for him to sign the address posted here? If so, has he tried following this guide anbd contacting theymos?

The only forms of contact you should trust is through a PM directly to theymos on this forum; any others have a fair chance of being bogus.

This suggestion is all well and good, but how would this be enforced?
How would you prove that a lower ranked account had been sold? You couldn't go from IPs, since people browse this forum through Proxies or TOR. This means that not only would be IPs be essentially untraceable, but anyone else using the same Proxy network or TOR could be punished due to their account being 'sold'. You couldn't go from signing a staked message, since very often addresses are not staked or private keys to staked addresses are transferred with the sale of the account.
In addition to this, what would happen if the account was found to be sold? Banning wouldn't be too great, since any false positives due to the reasons above would mean innocent people would be affected. Restoring the account back to the original owner could be problematic as not only does it take a lot of time and effort to do so, but the original owner would have to be verified as being the legitimate owner. Otherwise, hacked accounts could simply be sold and restored back to the hacker to sell again.

It is very nice coming up with 'solutions' like these, but you have to think about it from a logical point of view.

It would, but that would punish users who come here to try and benefit to the bitcoin economy by starting a business; it would be impossible for newbies who come here to advertise their own business to do so fully until they became active members of the forum (which shouldn't be needed IMO).

I believe I misunderstood the way you wrote your post to be a snarky remark. My apologies.

I think you're misunderstanding. What I mean is, let's say that I own a website (E.G a faucet). I could reward lower users for putting a link to my website in their BitcoinTalk.org signature space and posting. In that case the only way to stop that from happening would be to moderate individual users to remove their signature, since it would be impossible to moderate an external source.

The only way that this would work would be to completely remove signatures altogether from lower ranked members; simply trying to remove them from campaigns would not work. While this would probably work, it would be a shame for the few who use their signature space legitimately.

The account isn't locked because of him moving to another location; the account was locked because he tried to recover it through his Secret Question. You would know this if you had read the thread before posting for your signature.
BitcoinTalk doesn't care where you log in from, I have logged in using VPNs from all over the world and it has made no difference. Providing that you know your password/can recover your account via email there shouldn't be any problems.

I don't think that's what he meant. If I am understanding correctly, he meant that other sites would begin trying to offer signature campaigns externally which lower ranked members could join.
For example, someone could go on one of the several other Bitcoin forums on the internet and say 'I will pay you xBTC per post for putting my link in your BitcoinTalk signature'. This would cause exactly the same problem, apart from this would be more difficult to moderate.
I disagree that limiting signatures for lower ranked members will achieve anything, for both the reason stated above and the reason given by Quickseller*. As I have said previously, I believe the only real solution to the entire problem of spamming is stricter moderation on both campaigns and their participants.

*

---

Regardless of political events I have no idea about, Lauda does have a point. Indefinitely discussing the subject does nothing but give it time to get worse, until it may be too late. This has been in the pipeline for several months now, I believe it is becoming fairly timely (even for BitcoinTalk standards) for something to be finally implemented.

That is very little compared to threads of other languages that have not been given their own section. Look at the stickied threads in that section, you will see that other languages have several times the views of the Arabic thread.

This forum very rarely gives trial runs with things like this. The best way to get a section is to bring a large Arabic community to the forum and prove that you deserve your own section.

I'm unsure if this has already been mentioned, but there is a small SQL error that I have found in api.php on your server.
When calling the API through a URL similar to /api/1, the SELECT query throws the error 'Unknown column 'num_voting_options' in 'field list'.'. After looking in your sql folder, I believe the problem is that you are trying to query the table games to get the num_voting_options and max_voting_fraction columns, when these columns are instead located in the event_types table.
In addition, when querying the games table in the same query, you seem to deal with the game_id as a string by encasing it in apostrophes. Considering that in schema_initial.sql game_id is initialized as an int(11), this isn't needed and could cause problems down the line. If you're worried about SQL injection being used when not encasing the game_id you could use the ctype_digit(); function in PHP to be sure. If not, I would really suggest using PDO->prepare as NLNico suggested; it is a lot safer in general than simply trying to escape the strings before querying.

It's not a question of whether OgNasty can promote Betcoin; anyone can. It's a question of whether he should.
What with Betcoin's history being dodgy at best it can very easily give people (especially newer members) a skewed impression of a company's trust and ethics should someone as trusted as OgNasty advertise for them - especially so whilst using words such as "The most trusted Bitcoin and Litecoin Casino".