mikey, I believe that thread like this are disallowed if they are rewarding merit to posts that were created after this thread was created. This is so that there can be no misconception of incentivizing posting in any way. Consider implementing this into your rules

Mods move quickly and are unlikely to provide an exact reason as the expectation is that you understand the rules prior to posting. It seems like there would have been multiple reasons for a moderator to have deleted this post, so I'm unsure what questions remain. The part of your post that is quoted is not meant to explicitly signify the problem; more likely it is just to let you know which post is was for your own reference.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

Take some time, read through the rules and continue using the forum after you understand them more fully.

That's a big part of the ethical dilemma. When an illegal drug-distributor is caught all of the funds on-hand are seized; this is a terrible analogy for the situation, but if the community (as the authority) were largely in agreement that these funds were being used explicitly for illegitimate acts then it would seem appropriate that the funds be seized. Is that flawed reasoning?

I would say in countries where the technology is insufficient to implement mass-adoption for cryptocurrencies will be the countries that are likely to adopt the usage of precious metals at similar times due to some large-scale event that causes a domino effect of countries currencies to collapse and become unusable. I think we're likely to see a return to precious metals being utilized as currency at some point in the future, but it's years away in most developed countries if it's ever going to happen.

Sounds like a solid opportunity to start something like this if you are so inclined.

Given my understanding of the situation I would keep whatever amount is appropriate as payment for the work already done (or full payment for the work agreed to be done) and then the remainder is a tricky situation. Giving money back to scammers (as punishment for being caught) sounds like a terrible outcome. Charity or refunding those that were scammed in the past (especially by the initial fundraising for project1) would seem an appropriate response.

Do you happen to have the box, instruction manual or anything else that came with the games originally? Are you willing to accept escrow with funds to be released after the games have been tested?

I'm assuming you don't want to split the lot, but would you be willing to sell just Metal Gear and Zelda?

The Zelda cart looks a bit busted up; what's the story there?

Please reconsider your stance on the way you accept payments. You are already working with a ridiculously small group of potential buyers and then you are scaring all of them away by not accepting an escrow from this site.

From your shipping rates it sounds like your customers would be paying more for shipping than they would for the bag.

Since it is your friend creating the bags, might I suggest that you gear this towards a more general crowd. Everyone needs a convenient bag!

How many users around here do you think fit into your market? This is an extremely specific product. Do you accept escrow? What affiliation do you have with the company that produces these bags?

You didn't even mention the cost.

I don't know if I agree that it is fair to allow someone to continue to advertise for a banned advertiser, simply because they have an increased personal stake in that advertiser. I might be misunderstanding your statement again, though, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I know there currently aren't any campaigns that are operating off-site, but admittedly this is not something I keep up with in any capacity. It would seem only banned advertisers would have any reason to do so, but I might be wrong about this. Regularly it is very easy to tell if someone is genuinely associated with a campaign, because campaign managers are extremely transparent with their spreadsheets and applications are normally public. Granted this isn't a rule, but it would seem an easy guideline to adhere to if you want to run a legitimate campaign.

I'm mostly thinking out-loud, and I see where you're coming from, but there seems to be applicable answers to these questions.


I feel like we're playing word-games at this point. If there were nothing resembling a "license" then there would be no enforcement of any guidelines and we'd be where we currently are (or worse).

Would it be a difficult/unfeasible task to enforce a rule that users advertising for banned advertisers are given a few days to remove their signature before being suspended/banned?


I meant more along the lines of a community-enforcement; similar to the direction DT is taking.

Either I misunderstand what you're trying to say or I don't see the problem with losing these campaigns. If a campaign is unable to uphold the Signature Campaign guidelines, then what exactly is the issue with them moving off-site? Unless you mean to say the management of the campaign will be taken off-site and the participants will remain here.

It would be interesting if there was some kind of a process that would determine who can appropriately manage a campaign, sort of like there is a process that determines which trust values appear by default. This of course leaves bias as a part of the equation and means we'll have to hammer out some criteria. Done properly though, I don't think it would be too terrible to enforce, sort of like DT is somewhat self-sufficient (at least, that's the goal).

No worries, Chris, we are all figuring this out alongside you. Thanks for applying a quick-fix to the situation. As soon as the trust-list goes into effect and Fortify is removed from DT it should be appropriate for everyone to remove their counter-tags.

Sent PMs to the counter-taggers to remove their tags.



Just people that left positive trust, in response to a negative trust they disagree with. Now that you've removed that user (Fortify) from DT, their positive in response is no longer appropriate or necessary.

I will reach out to BitcoinPenny and see if he is willing to remove Fortify from his list.

Fortify, the user that left the negative trust, has been inactive for months and is unlikely to respond on here. Makes for an interesting situation, but seemingly the most appropriate solution would be to remove the inactive user from DT until they are able to maintain their ratings.


I will also try to let you know.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but to summarize: You believe TMAN is abusing DT for excluding people he believes are abusing DT?

Winning bid, I will be in touch via PM. Congratulations bavi and thank you very much for everyone that participated. I'm getting my kialara for even less than I assumed

I am getting lucky with my wishlist of collectibles.

Less than 5 minutes left. Last chance to bid! Keep in mind there is no sniping!

Exactly one hour remaining! Place your final bids now or miss your chance to sell your Kialara while Bitcoin is low!

5-hours to go, and we have a new winning bid!

New winning bid with just about 7-hours left to go. I wasn't expecting multiple low-ranking members to be the ones with the Kialaras Good luck to all of the bidders, I will be unavailable when the auction end-time hits. I will be on a couple of hours after that to declare the winner, even though it will have been figured out by then.