That's a bad thing then. I wasn't really educated about the things on this forum, I was thinking that a staff like you can banned users regardless of the rank.
Nope. Some staff members are patrollers which means that they can only *nuke* newbies and that is it. This kid can continue gaining amounts, does anyone here already tried sending a pm to the campaign manager of komodo to atleast ban then from campaign or do manager seems to not care? Well i guess ill be doing it myself
I have PM'd Komodo a while back regarding the spam in their campaign. They have some *unknown* person as their campaign manager that somewhat was hesitant to do a cleanup. After a minor discussion with him, they did not respond. I also doubt that they will take action considering their campaign closes in 8 days, but you can most certainly try. |
|
|
|
Done sorry for that tho i was having a hard time on that one because of the limited spacing while using my phone.
It is fine, no need to apologize! Anyway back to the topic, I supposed this user was already banned
You don't seem to be aware of how things work around here. Only *some* global moderators and admins can ban users of this rank. Bans have been very slow the past couple of days, so this might take a while. |
|
|
|
|
@Poster above
Komodo employing copy-paste spammers; no actual surprise there. Yes, copy-paste is a permanently bannable offense. I do wonder whether this is some semi-advanced bot rehashing previous posts, or a standard farmer just altering the content from previous pages a bit.
P.S. You may want to remove some of that spacing in your post, it's using up a lot of space for no purpose.
|
|
|
|
Just because you do not agree with what I wrote does not mean it's not in line with the topic.
You ask us to define spam -> I give you examples of spam and now you deny them? If you're going to use such reasoning, then responding here is a waste of my (and anyone else's) time. I am not attacking you, whatever happened to freedom of speech?
I have not claimed that. Read my post again: The other cases that I've encountered are :
1) Avoiding guilt -> like in OP's case.
2) Attacking me.
|
|
|
|
Moved my post with examples of shit posting from other thread here: I suppose Segwit and LN were introduced as overall improvements to bitcoin... let's see how they will fare.
Useless post with zero meaning considering the OP, content and the discussion being lead in that thread. Maybe OP wants to create a wallet for his new altcoin and wants a prototype code from a bitcoin wallet.
Nerco-bumped a thread with an useless post. China appears to be controlling bitcoin now, Chinese are responsible for the present increase in price.
 |
|
|
|
If you were a genuine user, I'd expect you to know the difference between: 1) Forum rules. 2) Forum etiquette/trust system. The forum rules do not determine for what reasons negative trust ratings should be left. If you break the forum rules, you get banned not left with negative ratings (usually). If you knew this, you would have known that the right place for this thread was Reputation and not Meta.
And I am enrolled in a signature campaign. I could get banned for something that is not my fault.
It's my fault that you're shit posting, right? Negative trust just seems wrong.
Not necessarily. Spamming or account farming/trading is shady in its own regard, and in almost all of the situations detrimental to the forum. I do not trust any user that engages in such dealings. Perhaps global moderators can be given the power to issue temp bans as well.
Only two moderators are able to temp. ban IIRC, and 1 isn't even active anymore. As it currently stands, there are only two (active) people that can ban people.
Change the way you post and in a month come back and ask nicely to have the feedback removed.  Correct. Some users that admitted that it's their fault and asked nicely for a second chance already had their ratings converted into neutral (for later evaluation) in the same day. The other cases that I've encountered are : 1) Avoiding guilt -> like in OP's case. 2) Attacking me. |
|
|
|
Are all posts supposed to be long in order not to fall into the "Shit post" category?
If you were really concerned, you'd be doing research and not asking the same questions that were asked several times before. The length of a post is one of the things being evaluated when determining whether you're spamming or not. We have derailed this thread long enough. Please move further replies into this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1678004.
Sorry mindtrust & rizzarolla. |
|
|
|
I do not spam because if you check, I do not post on a daily basis and 10 posts/day cannot be called spamming.
It doesn't matter if you post 1, 10, or 20 posts (technically if you did a really high number you'd probably be long banned). Just look at your post history, you are shit posting with insubstantial one liners. Trying to avoid the blame, when it is obvious that you are guilty, will not help your case. It would be better if you admit it and actually try to improve (in case that you were a genuine user, which I doubt).
I still have no idea why these have not been permanently banned. It seems to me like the altcoin campaigns are the ones causing the most harm now. |
|
|
|
Yes, it is.
You keep stating that, yet I see no elaboration as to why. Seems like the statement is going in circles ("Magic numbers alert consensus" -> "Consensus alerted because of magic numbers"). It is pushing money away from what is giving security to the network, to other untested things, and it can be just the first step.
Untested? Segwit is a lot of things, but untested is not one of them. Even if it's going to work one time, it is still a power of few, with unknown incentives. It is completely different from what has make bitcoin working until today. Anyway, the answer to this your wrong assertion is already on the first post. I am even free to say to everyone that this can become a big loss of their found and the utility of the network.
You are free to say that, but that is very well wrong. |
|
|
|
Trying to improve the quality of my post everytime but still not likely to be qualified need more practice and enhance my vocabulary thanks bitmixer and to lauda , hope I can join again next time.
Yes, if you are not in the permanent ban list then you should be able to improve and rejoin at a later date (if Bitmixer restores unban functionality). Question : Since I have promoted the site in my last week, am still entitled for payment of the aforementioned week? (yes/no).
You were a somewhat decent poster, but TBH I do not know the answer to this question. It comes down to how the system is implemented, i.e. I have no access to payments. Some banning rounds will end up being pre-payments considering that payment dates are fixed.
Please PM me directly if you have any other questions so that we can avoid redundant posts here. Thanks, Lauda. |
|
|
|
@Lauda
"Nakamoto is long gone"
This isn't relevant, I can call it the Bitcoin's consensus if you prefer. It wasn't a call for an authority.
Bitcoin Consensus is not alerted by this number. It does not do anything wrong, does it? Just because you or a minor group of people disagree with the number (that is kind of arbitrary), that doesn't make it wrong. Yes, and this is because I'm saying that making this kind of changes is a utterly bullshit, that will damage the future of Bitcoin.
That is *fine* I guess. You are free to not-run a Segwit client and not show support for it. However, if the majority of the system adopts Segwit then that is ' Bitcoin Consensus' (your words) on a new soft fork. |
|
|
|
You have to be really blind to not seeing the problem here.
Wrong. You really have to be *not okay* to have a problem with this (either misinformed deeply or something like that). You keep using the words "Nakamoto consensus" which is nonsense. Nakamoto is long gone, and consensus should be based on the current participants of the system. This is really simple, as there are two options: 1) People disagree with these "magic numbers" (as you call them) -> they don't run Segwit -> Segwit soft fork fails. 2) People agree with these "magic numbers" -> Consensus has been reached -> Segwit soft fork activates. I'm just going to keep my original Bitcoin-QT it seems to be working fine.  You can run some pretty old versions so claims that it's an "altcoin", "hard fork" or whatever are just nonsense. It's backwards compatible. However, I would not recommend running outdated code (this includes BU as it's not even based on 0.13.0 yet IIRC). |
|
|
|
As you said that you will be cross checking the list of applicants with the list of Lauda, then I think the blacklist made by Lauda is not reliable enough, as I waited long for bitmixer to open slots and finally was able to find a spot in it and in the first week I made only 3 to 4 posts in a week and Lauda removed me saying that I have spammed a forum, how can you call someone a spammer if he have posted less then 10 comments in a week?  Not reliable enough? You can be, and will be labeled a spammer even if you make a single comment in 30 days (both numbers are arbitrary). You had a lot of previous posts that you were judged upon, just like every other shitposter in Bitmixer that wanted to go under the radar by posting very few posts during the week. Not only that, your account is most likely sold for the sole purpose of spamming considering the gaps in your post history (not that the posts were any better before that). For your kind information I have not purchased account and I will post only when I have enough time as there are better things to do in this world in compare to spending full day here so better keep your judgement with yourself.
That's why all your posts (mostly insubstantial) are one-two liners.  |
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply Lauda, so at the end it's only to avoid to lose precious time every time someone ask if an account is banned or not ... isn't it? Other reasons (from your point of view?).
That's pretty much it. It should save time for pretty much any party involved in addition to removing redundancy and inconsistency. This helps people that are hunting account farmers, spammers or just any other kind of rule-breaking users. I could see potential harm in doing this with temporarily banned accounts, but it seems pretty okay to do it with permanently banned ones IMO. |
|
|
|
Interesting, now I also think the ban (perma-ban) should not be visible to the other users... just for security. It's not useful, otherwise Lauda can you post (again) some arguments in favour of your 'request'? Thanks.
Again, this is not my *request* nor my proposal. I picked this up in another thread as it was mentioned by someone as I thought it's an idea that deserves a shot. After a brief discussion with theymos, they told me that I should maybe create a thread to check what the community thinks about this/whether there was demand for it.
Just read through the thread again. A simple example, of what happens to me personally (but not very often, since I'm not a global moderator) are reports of users that are already permanently banned. This has happened a fair amount of times this year. This wastes time of both parties involved. It would also help people like: Not sure how good the idea is but would certainly help me find if the accounts that I have personally reported to the admins (permaban requests) are banned yet or not.
Additionally, I think there should be a another page like seclog which shows updates on daily banned accounts.
For both or permanent bans only? |
|
|
|
Since right now there is no Banned rank it seems that it is you who should first give proper arguments in favor of this feature (just in case, I've read the thread).
Plenty of people have voiced such arguments, I merely asked for opinions. On the other hand, withholding information about who banned a given user for what exactly doesn't look a very nice idea overall. Further, I cannot possibly agree that such questions serve no purpose as you claim.
It was always like that. Otherwise, how could we find out why this user has been stickied as banned?
For a good part of the user-base you can *guess* whether they are permanently banned if they have been in a signature campaign or had some profile information beforehand. However, this requires you to notice the user prior in addition to only being applicable to 2016 bans (which is when this change was introduced IIRC). Should I venture a guess that you expect the number of the "chosen" ones with the perma ban right to be expanded if your proposal gets accepted?
No. I do not expect that this will happen unless 1) A new global moderator is chosen. 2) Some of the old global moderators become very active again. 3) There is obvious need for this. This is actually not my proposal. It was suggested at least one time in the past, and brought up by someone else in another thread recently. I figured that it's an idea worth revisiting. |
|
|
|
This is not an idea, this is a gut feeling of sorts. I heavily suspect that this type of "clarity" may raise more questions than solve. If some user gets banned, and that pitiful fact is publicly announced (by bestowing the Banned rank on him), the majority of the forum members would like to know what this particular user has been banned for, who exactly banned him, and so on. If this info is provided (as it should be), some people may start asking themselves how come that some mods are giving out more bans than others...
And question if they aren't abusing the ban-hammer?
No, I don't see that happening (occasional question or two is normal for everything). Do not push for extremities. There is a very small group of people that are able to ban users, and that includes administrators and *some* global moderators. Information about bans will not likely be given out (unless a moderator comes forward stating that they've banned someone which is fine). Those questions really serve no purpose anyways.
I've yet to see proper concerns against this, besides: 1) Account farmer(s) fighting against it. 2) Concerns that it may not be really useful.
Update: When you make it public that someone is banned, you make them vulnerable to imposters impersonating them in order to make it appear that the banned user is (attempting to) evading their ban.
I do not see anything that prevents this from already happening, especially in permanent bans where the signature and profile information is removed? |
|
|
|
Let's think out of the box: wouldn't it be nice if Bitcointalk auctions accounts instead of giving them a permanent ban?
What makes you think that this idea would be any good? Or, one step back, farming is caused by the account level system. I know this too has to be the way it is, but if a newbie could instantly have a big signature, there would be no reason to farm accounts for activity.
There would, as there are not that many campaigns for newbies. If the campaign model changed to accommodate newbies, we'd likely see a new flood of spammers. Bad idea, I suggested this few months ago (maybe more than 1 year ago) and BadBear said it was a bad idea :/. I don't remember why, maybe privacy reason... at the end only the user that is banned must decide to reveal to the others his 'ban status'.
You say that it is bad, but do not elaborate why? I'm aware that BadBear shot it down, read the thread. Theymos is likely willing to implement it, if there is demand/support for it. I've made this thread after already discussing this with them. |
|
|
|
these are such ridiculous reasons to destroy a healthy economy on bitcointalk, and to add a "banned" rank just to encourage the already huge egos of these wannabe moderators.
So how exactly does this damage the "healthy" (account sale) economy if we only tag permanently banned accounts? Do you sell permanently banned accounts under the premise that they're not banned or something |
|
|
|
Please. There are zero (at least obvious) cons to this idea. Even if it were not that beneficial (which I would argue that it is going to be; rizzarolla is free to explain this further), implementing it is not hard and it does no harm. you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem?
I've yet to see an account farmer that is not shitposting, talking to each other among their accounts (which is implicitly against the rule as it is spam) and such. That said, if you are not doing anything wrong, this change does not affect you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
