just want to let everyone lnow that I don't just post for payment.
i think its pretty clear you only post for the payment, you were asking about activity in this thread to see when you would reach member status so you could get a higher rate in your sig campaign were you not? |
|
|
|
There is no rule regarding the length of your posts however your posts should add to the conversation. Just because your post is ~10 lines does (as your above post is) does not mean that your post is constructive and just because a post is one line does not mean that it is not constructive. Posting low value posts/threads is against #2 in the forum moderation policy that has been around for years. I agree with hilarious that you really don't need to worry about your activity level and should focus on adding to the conversation when you post. As a general rule, if your post is on-topic and receives at least one reply/response then your post is constructive. Although just because a post does not receive a response does not mean that it is not constructive. However a good number of your posts should generally receive some kind of response. your post should be on topic to the thread and/or where the thread's conversation(s) is/are going. dont post nonsense that doesnt require thinking like "yes i agree" or "+1," etc. referring to the bolded part, think of it as having a typed out conversation. |
|
|
|
for me i pick JEB BUSH
he got the experience
he got a president bloodline
he can make america great again
who you got and who you prefer and why?
President blood line? Are you serious? So you like him because he will make a great corrupt politician like his family members? unfortunately, people here in america actually think like this, and hence the poor state of american politics. people that actually think like this are allowed to vote. let that sink in for a moment. |
|
|
|
hi.. I have google play developer account. i sell it 55$. but you can get special price if you buy in bulk. please contact me for detail.
skyp id rizkysri1505.
thank you
pretty sure the fee to google is just 25 dollars to be upgraded to developer status. |
|
|
|
Ok, so I know this is an old thread.. but asks the questions that's been on my mind for a good while. What if we think we have a really good idea for a new gambling game, but are stuck behind the legalities of not being able to create one because I live in the US? Is there any way to legally go about making this website?
I'm not quite sure what the legalities are with creating/hosting a gambling website in the US, but I'm pretty certain that it's not good. I would maybe try to find someone to host it for you? But then again, I'm not quite so sure about this stuff, and personally wouldn't want government busting down my door for creating some game I put up on the internet lol. i believe its a legal gray area at this point, and no legal action is being taken against it. what primedice did some time ago barring US players from playing was a precaution more than anything. as for legalities, you could simply host the site in a server based in another country if you want to be absolutely careful. |
|
|
|
You are banned as Lauda has said , for signature spam. You were largely posting in Giveaway and Local thread just for increasing your post count. And seeing hilarious' opinion on secondstrade(and yobit) campaign, I wouldn't be surprised if more members from those campaign start getting banned.
Yup. Sadly there's probably going to be a lot of these threads popping up the next few days but these bannings are long overdue and the secondstrade/yobit campaigns can't continue as they have been. Hopefully people will take the warning or see these threads and improve before they get a time out. does that mean you mods have decided to raise the bar on what qualifies as a constructive post? if so, that's wonderful news. |
|
|
|
I would have been more than happy to accept escrow. I didn't want the trade linked with my username which is why I used another  you just admitted to a scam attempt. |
|
|
|
I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way: When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested. Suggested members must meet the following criteria: - Full member or above - At least one post in the last 60 days - At least 10 people listed in their trust list - At least 20 points (see below) Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested. When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page. What do you think of this? How about you get on the default trust list by buying +ved more than 10 times by someone who has more activity points thank you? hell no. |
|
|
|
That said back on Euthanasia I'm against people asking others to kill them, a license to self suicide if supported makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification, but as for the suggestion for a license for suicide, how would that impact anything? would having such a license permit a holder to a facility that would assist in that person's suicide? if so, how is that any different from euthanasia?
No problem and the benefit of a license is that people will need to decide for themselves without involving the guilt of others who survive after the person is dead. If they are unwilling to do so then they must live on, in the end it's their ultimate choice and they should be held responsible for their own outcome and not put it into the hands of another. Basically I'm implying a License to Kill (YOURSELF) Euthanasia in my opinion forces doctors to do the task, which is against their code of well trying their best to keep people alive. That said if the doctors want to have the right to do it in some cases that would be acceptable but not for perfectly well and fit individuals like in the OP, more for vegetable state individuals etc. http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/why-doctors-want-the-right-to-pull-the-plug-2/why would people need a license to kill themselves? that's called suicide and is executed out of free will already. no one else is involved already, why complicate it with a license? i really dont see the point here. |
|
|
|
I think only cards game type can make more earn agains banker.. That my personal experience..
some card games you can, such as poker, because youre playing against the other players, not the house. usually, games against the house are more or less designed to make you lose, ie, profit the house. |
|
|
|
I have said this before. We need to stop blaming the thing people are addicted to on the thing(s) people are addicted to. People need to accept responsibility for their actions and stop blaming other sources. Bottom line.
people dont like admitting they were wrong and/or made a mistake, of course its natural to deflect. in this case, people often blame casinos for causing them to lose everything when in reality they themselves could have stopped. i cant find the link now, but there was a woman in europe who lost some ridiculous sum of money (6 or 7 figures) and decided to sue the casino for "not stopping her." quite ridiculous. |
|
|
|
It would be worth a sub-level in my opinion as it helps to filter out Bitcoin Services from Signature campaigns and both contribute to the forum, having separate presences on the board would be useful to provide a noise filter, as the overview of sig campaign threads shows there are always new campaigns emerging and enough threads being bumped to warrant a new board to categorize them.
i dont think a sub section just for sig campaigns would be big enough to warrant its creation, what about a more general forum-related services section? that could work. |
|
|
|
-
It would be not unlikely. I mean there were certain drugs in the history and some of them were very commonly used while in the same time letting the work power or health of the society drop. That governments intervened, and at some pointe overreacted, is somewhat understandable. And i now have read that the governments forbid drugs because of the organized crime taking advantage of it. If that is true then legalizing might not bring the effect they wish.
true, history repeats itself. correct me if im wrong but i believe it was imperial china that was heavily influenced by opiates. that aside, organized crime in drugs exists and is incredibly profitable because it supplies the drugs people want. if those drugs were to be made legal, organized crime would likely turn to stronger drugs that would be classified as illegal, or work to supply drugs cheaper than what would legally be sold to maintain their profits. imo, the drug problem, from a legal standpoint, will never be solved. Yes, it surely will hit the organized crime. Though i was surprised to read that the organized crime came first, when these things were allowed. They made a big business with it and government partly disallowed drugs because they made a profit. So the question is if legalization really will have a huge impact. In Portugal maybe the drug lords decided that it would be smart to suppress drugs for some time to have a role model for the worldwide legality of drugs? I'm not sure if that is possible. Only was surprised that the profits were first and then the permit came. even if drugs of all sorts became legalized, im of the opinion that humans will always manage to find something new that will be, in turn, classified as illegal because it id too potent/dangerous. however, even if legalization cannot do away with drug cartels and such, there would be numerous benefits, such as the ability to tax drug sales and to have some commission in place to ensure the purity and safety of these substances for consumption. that being said, this has gotten rather far from the subject of euthanasia, but good discussions usually tend to do so. Opium trade was forced on China historically and they lost the opium wars and ended up with an addiction problem.
That said its true that when governments intervene they tend to go to any extent to contain the threat.
Which can give rise to large organizations to traffic those goods like the rise of the mafia, or mexico drug cartels.
Deregulation does have its benefits as it removes the stigma associated with it and provides more options to resolve problems.
That said back on Euthanasia I'm against people asking others to kill them, a license to self suicide if supported makes more sense.
thanks for the clarification, but as for the suggestion for a license for suicide, how would that impact anything? would having such a license permit a holder to a facility that would assist in that person's suicide? if so, how is that any different from euthanasia? |
|
|
|
Coinbase, Circle, and Xapo are also good wallet options - perfect for a business.
Will you advertise/sell your shirts on this Forum? You could post adds in the Goods section...
neither of those are what I would classify as wallets; if you don't control the private keys, you dont really have full control of your coins. as far as im concerned, coinbase and circle are just exchanges that you can use to store your bitcoin in. consider using a HD wallet such as bitcoin core, electrum, multibit, or armory to have fulll control of any and all coins you receive. https://www.bitcoin.com/choose-your-walletas for web wallets, i would not recommend using blockchain.info, there have been thefts in the past and will likely be in the future. xapo isnt a what I would consider a web wallet either, since you do not control the private keys. |
|
|
|
I was curious to know this.Thanks this clarifies everything about trust system.
Can anyone tell me how the forum DefaultTrust users are chosed? like vod is trusted and if he just give someone negative then most of the people can see his red trust so how can someone someone count in default trust? does that mean vod is in DT list of everyone?
You are going off-topic on your own thread, at any rate the explanation. Theymos(admin) chooses people for depth 1 of DefaultTrust, and people on defaulttrust depth 2 are chosen by people on depth 1. So whenever a defaulttrust member level 1 member (say vod) adds QS to his trust list, QS would now be in defaulttrust depth two and so on. By default you only trust defaultTrust members up to depth 2. i think vod is in depth 2 actually. he's on dooglus's list. |
|
|
|
|
purse.io was compromised quite recently, i would advise against even considering purchasing this account.
|
|
|
|
This is definitely a ponzi scheme in the making. Most of the HYIP sites now are doing this MO, putting up their site as a cloudmining business. This is site is much worse than royalhash.com that stopped paying their members a few weeks ago. Do NOT INVEST on THIS.
people have been doing that for a while, and it works most of the time as long as the site looks nice and gives realistic expectations of "payouts." whats dumb is that people fall for it every time as long as the site looks even close to legitimate. this one is pretty openly advertising as a ponzi though, given the "pyramid." |
|
|
|
for me i pick JEB BUSH
he got the experience
he got a president bloodline
he can make america great again
who you got and who you prefer and why?
Hillary Clinton because I want America to have her first woman president now if that's the sole basis on what you decide who you want your next president to be, you should never try to discuss politics. i dont give a dank if the next president is the next trans snowflake nonbinary potato handed black woman, i just want them to do their job right which no president in a long time has done. I agree with you but still Hillary Clinton is my favorite candidate. ... Okay, Betwrong is betting Hillary. Kind of makes sense, you know. well said  honestly though. i feel bernie sanders as the next president might do the country some good, hes already planning on cracking down on the pharmaceutical industry, 4 years is a lot of time for improvements you know. as for hillary, she wont become president with the whole email scandal thing going on. |
|
|
|
-
It would be not unlikely. I mean there were certain drugs in the history and some of them were very commonly used while in the same time letting the work power or health of the society drop. That governments intervened, and at some pointe overreacted, is somewhat understandable. And i now have read that the governments forbid drugs because of the organized crime taking advantage of it. If that is true then legalizing might not bring the effect they wish.
true, history repeats itself. correct me if im wrong but i believe it was imperial china that was heavily influenced by opiates. that aside, organized crime in drugs exists and is incredibly profitable because it supplies the drugs people want. if those drugs were to be made legal, organized crime would likely turn to stronger drugs that would be classified as illegal, or work to supply drugs cheaper than what would legally be sold to maintain their profits. imo, the drug problem, from a legal standpoint, will never be solved. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
