This user has become active recently and doesn't understand anything about how the forum currently runs, and doesnt intend to learn. Rather just get pissy about everything. I think it would be better for him to simply leave the forum and don't come back.

Though, to perhaps try and explain it, let's say that the user 'Hello' is running an auction that you win. Then, a member called 'HeIlo' messages you and asks you to send them the Bitcoin to an address. You send it to them and wait for the item you won.
Congratulations. Because you didn't get a warning to check the user that you're dealing with, you may not have, and as a result you just got scammed. That is what the notification is for.

Essentially, yes. It's pretty much another type of verification for trusted members in addition to a signed message, since signing a PGP message can be easier than a bitcoin address.

From what I can see and hear from other faucet owners, yes. Since you have had a possible bot visit your faucet, they may come back with another address/ip. You will have to consistently look out for this to stop your faucet being botted.
Try to be sure that you distinguish legitimate members from bots however. Install Google Analytics and see what site refers users to your faucet. It may give an idea on whether it's a bot or just an advertising campaign/rotator.

You were kicked from the campaign for low quality posts. Use the search function.

Someone with 100 trust score will look trustworthy to send large amounts to, right? However, if all of the trust comes from trades worth 0.01BTC or less, they could get that trust for 0.1BTC and run off with any larger amounts they are sent.

AFAIK your balance is in 'Pending' state for a week before it is moved to your main balance, providing the clicks are legitimate.

Which is a problem every open source script faces. There is no real fix for this.

So what would happen if they added this? People would maybe move to another open source faucet script, where (if enough of a transition happened) the exact same thing would happen with that script. Would the blame then be pushed on that script/service?
The best way to minimize this would be for micro-transaction services to stop offering faucet scripts and force everyone to code their own. There would be significantly less faucets, but next to no bots for any that aren't the highest paying. However, this would stop anyone who didn't have knowledge in coding or the money to hire someone that did from making a faucet. Would this be a good thing?

1 - Perhaps, though any then bot creator could look at the page, find the element that looked out of place and bam, there's the honeypot. Granted, more could be done to prevent this and make it very difficult for bots, but there will always be some sort of identifiable feature that bots could use to get around this.
2 - Let me show you why this would do nothing:
Okay, so now the honeypot is selected no matter where on the page it is. Want to deselect it and show that you're not a bot? Change the true to false. A bot looks like a human requests wise, but it doesn't have to act like one.

This is true, but I think it refers more to insulting others for no reason. If I were to call you a cunt with no motive, it would probably fall under that rule. If you did something wrong and I called you a cunt, I don't think I would be persecuted for it.

I don't see why discussion of such topics would be wrong. So long as you weren't giving examples on where to acquire such goods (like pirated movies or carded accounts), I don't see why it would fall under any rule to have your post removed.

It's been shown repeatedly over time that some people here don't have common sense; asking people to use it wouldn't work.

Unless they are doing something like ban evading, such accounts aren't breaking any rules. Granted it could be seen as immoral to make an account just to shill for something, but if it bothers you ignore it.
Maybe shilling for something should be added to the list, especially if you are getting paid to do it.

This is actually correct, though it doesn't make sense with the way that SMF deals with dates. If you look at older quotes, such as this one:
It makes grammatical sense with the date. It only doesn't make sense with your example as SMF turns the current date into the string 'Today'.

It could probably be fixed in about 1 or 2 lines of code, but with the new forum software looming it would be a waste of time for something so small.

You can, though it would be very unlikely for you to find someone who would be willing to buy it for more than it cost you. Matter of fact, I think it would be very unlikely for you to find someone willing to buy it all together.

It isn't, providing you know PHP, HTML, CSS and SQL. If you don't know all of those, it will be somewhat more difficult.

Have you looked at the code, or are you basing this opinion off of one checkbox you saw in this thread? If you look at other faucet scripts available to download and use, I believe FaucetBox easily has the best security of them all.

How would the people at FaucetBox know that bots were attacking your faucet? Requests to the FaucetBox API look the same, regardless of whether the person triggering the request is a bot or not.
Also, there are threads on the forum for you to help with identifying bot IPs, such as this one.

IPs aren't a good way of identifying users or bots, as it is extremely easy to change an IP. Trying to block bots through IPs would be like playing wack-a-mole in a 100 acre field.

Looks to me like you're looking for a scapegoat.

As said before, it is very easy to bot a lot of sites when every single site is the same in the way it operates. It is one of the downsides of scripts such as FaucetInABox. It did not happen to a faucet you coded personally as, unless your rewards are insanely high, it would not be worth a bot maker's time to create a bot for your site. Compare this to FaucetInABox, where there are hundreds of sites running the exact same script, it would be absolutely worth a bot creator's time to create something for it. It's common sense.

Here's another no effort spammer - whysoanon.

It will take a long time (few months minimum) to get a response from theymos, if he replies at all. I wouldn't get your hopes up for a quick response.

Added.
I'll wait a little while for YoBit and CloudBet to see what happens; it only seems to be one or two people complaining currently.

As OmegaStarScream said, open a thread in the Scam Accusations section and see if you get any response.

Then please, educate me on what a loyalty reward is. Also, can you stop with the obnoxious bold red text for no reason? Thanks.

The last call of defense for someone too mentally deficient to respond to the rest of my post. Child.

So he never broke a rule, just did something that you don't agree with/don't understand.

I wouldn't say a loyalty reward. You wouldn't get put on DT1 simply for being here for a long time, else every member from 2010-2011 would be on there.

Cryptodevil has broken no rules here. Combine that with the fact that trust isn't moderated in any way past blatant abuse, and your post is essentially all incorrect.

Cryptodevil wasn't chosen by any of the administrators to be on the Default Trust list, instead chosen by dooglus.

Account trading cannot be stopped. If it were banned on this forum then it would be simply continue off-forum. Also, the trust system and moderation are two things. It is not up to staff to moderate scams, it is what the trust system is used for. If someone sees it as untrustworthy, then that someone may leave you trust to correspond with that.

As said above, this is not a forum matter. This is between cryptodevil and yourself.

The user account satoshi is the legitimate Satoshi. For starters, he is of the rank 'Founder', is the first real account on this forum (with only an admin and hidden account before it). Combined with his post being one of the first public posts on the forum and his great knowledge of Bitcoin and the network, I would say it is safe to say he is real. Sirius and theymos could likely confirm this too, though I doubt they have the time or concern to.

How did you come to any of these conclusions?

The problem is that with the trend of selling accounts, rank is no longer correspondent to how experienced the user is. This is proven by the amount of Senior-Hero members that don't understand something simple such as the Activity system.

If you have an unedited post from before you were hacked containing a Bitcoin address, you can follow the instructions posted here. If you do this, don't expect a response very quickly.

If you do not have such a post, you should start posting from a new account. You aren't going to get your old one back.

I still believe the only way to fully remove the problem of signature campaign abuses is for the moderation team to be stricter (not to say they aren't doing enough currently). While it definitely hurts them slightly, doing things such as leaving negative feedback to the campaign's account won't change anything (e.g secondstrade). I also think that signature campaigns run by bots should be disallowed flat out. It is impossible for a bot to judge a post's quality without relying on some arbitrary figures such as character count. This is essentially an invitation for abuse.

I still don't understand theymos' views on this. Does he not know (which seems unlikely by how much mods have apparently notified him of it)? Does he not care? Is there some sort of magical solution being implemented "soon"?

Forums don't need a lot of members to stay alive; the forum wouldn't die should signature campaigns be banned. I am/have been a member of several online forums with somewhat small communities, and all of these places seemed a lot nicer with such a small but dedicated community behind them. I don't see the loss in traffic as a bad thing whatsoever, and I doubt it will be significant enough to affect the forum financially. IMO it would be akin to filtering water from piss.

Hilarious never said anything about said quality posters no longer posting. He said it would be a shame for quality posters to not "get a little bitcoin for something they would do anyway". While I agree with your comparison, it doesn't make sense in response to what was said.
Perhaps you should check up on your own English comprehension before insulting others for theirs.