You doubt that managers actually do their jobs? That's a fairly bold assumption.

You think that the Staff only are such because they want to earn money? You really have a skewed view on the moderation on this forum; this almost certainly isn't the case.

It isn't the Staff's job to judge a user's post quality unless it is especially bad. Even so, I don't see why this invalidates what I said originally.

Message Verified. I suggest that next time you link to a post you archive it in case the current account holder edits it.

And it would also remove some people's jobs while lowering overall post quality. Apart from participants earning more from spamming shitty posts, I cannot see any positives to this.

How so? Humans can judge things better than any machine/bot currently.

Due to the amount of characters in the post. This is not a good way to judge a post's quality.

At least in my case, I like to see the starting post count in order to gauge how many posts I have made throughout the period. While it may be somewhat useless in the counting process, it may not be so useless for participants. I'm sure it would be appreciated by some if the column could be shown (if it is simply hidden).

What? Moderators and Signature Campaign managers have different things to look out for, and should be looking for different levels of post quality. While a mod may not remove a post like "Thank you for this, it's really good!", a manager may not count it. I think you misunderstand what the job of a moderator is.
Also, a bot isn't perfect. It is very easy to trick a bot into paying for posts that shouldn't be paid for.

Though this then begs the question, are the sort of users that come here solely for signature payments the sort of people we want in this community?

Moderation and campaign management are two separate jobs. While they may get paid for one, that doesn't mean they wouldn't deserve to get paid for the other.

The signature campaign isn't the problem, it's the level of shit that people post in order to benefit from wearing one that is. I agree with Lauda, the majority of people on signature campaigns who post drivel deserve to have a ban - my point doesn't become invalid because I am wearing one myself.

How does it affect the users any more if the enrollment is done by a person, bar maybe the user having to wait a day or so before getting paid for their posts? May I remind you that one of the biggest campaigns that used a bot was YoBit, a campaign that - previous to hilariousandco stepping in to manage - was one of the most hated in the community. This was due to there being no limit to what was constructive and what was not, allowing people to spam shit all over the forum simply to receive payment. I would much rather wait a small while for my posts to be counted for payment than something like that happen again.

Congratulations shorena and redsn0w! Hopefully I'll be one of the luckier ones next

No, you cannot post here in the future. If you try to on another account, said account will be banned when* it is found to be you (*Note when: The mods will find that it is you).

Why should they? You knowingly broke a rule and tried to spam the forum for your own personal gain (signature payments). You made your bed, now lie in it.

If someone were dedicated enough this could happen easily, I may just be overthinking it however. I realize these accounts are usually found by Staff rather quickly, though there are always exceptions.

I was more assuming along the lines of said user having a backlog of accounts with potential activity, therefore ranking up will not be a problem. Posting once or twice per two week interval would not be difficult in order to build such a backlog of potential activity for the future. Posting a larger amount in the future to upgrade the account's rank to 'Jr. Member' in order to join YoBit, for example, would not require too much effort on the user's part either.

Absolutely, that would solve a lot of the problems I was trying to outline. If this were to work it would have to be nothing more than a warning, and it would have to be strict.

Yes, however it seems to be fairly rare that a higher ranked account is banned due to signature spam (unless it was sold recently). If this were the case and it was used to mainly pinpoint higher ranked accounts, I think it would be a waste of time implementing this for perhaps the same outcome as a simple PM.

At least not one which wouldn't require all staff to be extremely active/more staff to be taken on.

I can't say I'm that sure about the effectiveness of this. Let's take one of the most notorious campaigns for spam as an example, YoBit. A large amount of members removed from that campaign are below 'Member' rank (AFAIK). It is not difficult to get the potential activity for an account to that level, especially if said spammer is managing several accounts at the same time.
Due to this, I don't think that this would be too much of a problem for people dedicated to spamming due to their ability to switch accounts should a negative repercussion happen to one. This would be even less of a problem if the implementation included staged punishments (3 days, 7 days etc) as if one account had their signature removed they could move to another account, then move back once said other account account had their signature removed.

I don't add obvious ponzis to this list. Sorry.

I have added it to the list with your post as the reference, however I would prefer if you should post a thread in the Scam Accusations board for me to link it to. Thanks.

Have you updated the API key with your new one in the admin panel too?

You shouldn't have to do anything.

Was this faucet made recently, as in the last few hours? Is the deposit fully confirmed and listed in the account?

As you can see in your at line 123, the script makes the database entry for the balance 'NA' if nothing else is found (I believe). If your FaucetBOX account is not fully funded this may be the reason.

I think the best implementations would be several trusted escrows all have a key to a multi-sig address (E.G 3 of 4), the buyer sends to the address these keys correspond to and notify the seller. The seller then sends the goods, and once at least 3 of the escrows are content with the seller following through they sign the address and release the funds to the seller.

The advantages and disadvantages of the above implementation are as follows (what I can think of).

Advantages:

• More secure as multiple parties sign off on the escrow rather than one.
• Can still function if one escrow is busy/unavailable.

Disadvantages:

• If multiple of the escrows are in collusion the parties involved could be lured into a false sense of security.
• If 3 out of the 4 escrows are not available the funds will not be able to be released.

In addition a good method of communication would have to be present between the escrows in order to discuss whether to release the funds. Dependant on how much information these escrows are willing to give out this may be a problem.

Then leave. There is no need for you to remove your account to do so.
If you want to try and make it so you can't log back in, try to recover your account via Secret Question. This will lock your account until an admin intervenes.

In the early days of the forum people could request to have their accounts deleted. AFAIK it happened more than once. It does not happen now as theymos would have to look through all post and PM history to ensure there is nothing awry, and that takes too much time to do.

It's been discussed previously and I think the main problem is that few of the current forum escrows have been consulted or have discussed this between eachother/other trusted members of the community. There's also the consistent threat that previous incidents may be repeated in where several parties collude together/are the same person and can manipulate the deal regardless, making the multi-sig process nothing more than a waste of time or resources.
Personally I agree that it should be implemented in some description, however maintaining security and user-friendliness will be a struggle; may new users may not understand multi-sig addresses and be put off using escrow due to this.

I wouldn't call it recent; it was around two months ago perhaps at this point.

Added to the main list with a link to that page; removed from Pending. Thanks.

That would be obnoxious, and users would likely just click through it to post rather than read and take it in. I think that a message at the top of the board as previously suggested would be the best idea.

It was only a warning in case you thought it was a good idea to come back and try the same thing.

Try again in a few months and perhaps the admins will be nice, though you obviously know you did something wrong and openly tried to lie to their faces:
I wouldn't say you're chances are very high.

It's a lot easier to auto-lock a feature rather than remove it all together, plus it can be perhaps seen as a honeypot for any would be hackers. Either way, I'm sure theymos has his reasons.

The whois information for one of the websites involved was posted on knightdk's post here I believe, however the information is likely to be invalid if he has any sense.