It most likely wont happen. I had to petition for years to get the sections added to the Alt Coin section that there are now. I think your best option is to make use of what is given. As others have said, this is Bitcointalk, the altcoin section is sort of like a starting point for people before they develop their own forums. Its not meant to have too many detailed Alt coin related conversation/services here.

We are going a bit off topic here, as this is supposed to be about newbie jail/newbies etc. I see how we got here from newbie trust spam, but lets try to tie this back into the issue at hand.

As far as newbie's role in the trust system, they are disregarded until they can prove some sort of claim. Frankly thats how every case should be, but its not the forum's fault that individuals are using poor judgement in judging who is trustworthy when dealing with a semi anonymous online currency. As we have all said a hundred times, the default trust list is just that, a "default" it was designed for people that are new to the forum, and by the time people have things figured out, they create their own trust lists. The fact that everyone relies so heavily on default trust is mind boggling to me. When I installed a copy of Windows, Internet Explorer was the default browser, how many people here use internet explorer?

I could name 100 people on the default trust list that I don't care about their feedback any more than I do a newbies. Unless they have support backing up their claims. Those on default trust that don't use good judgement in leaving feedback or use it as a vindictive tool, get a thread in meta which is then address. When there are people on the 1st depth of trust who are abusing it, thats when there are problems. Anything else is just business as usual, and it gets sorted out. If you or anyone else reading has a viable plan for a new feedback system, there is a thread in Meta where Theymos is soliciting ideas.

Is it really a big deal though? How many people get caught up being scammed by newbies offering no collateral for loans or no escrow for sales?



As you mentioned, everyone has negatives from people who don't matter, but its pretty much a non issue. feedback is completely irrelevant unless the person is someone that you in particular trust, or they have a detailed explanation of the situation + a reference link so you can judge its validity for yourself. I dont really think a captcha would make much difference unless someone had bots giving out negative trust, and we tend to catch bots pretty quickly.


You are right, we don't moderate scams at all, because there is no way that we could reliably do so. It is up to individuals to not get scammed. Trolls and spammers on the other hand are caught, the only problem is what is "trolling" and what is "spamming" is subjective. Just because you don't like something that someone says, doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it. We have had a lot of practice catching spammers and trolls, so we do a pretty good job, but of course, those that go unreported, or those that are really good at it get away with it longer. Theres not much that can be done about that.

Again, scamming is not something that we ever plan to address nor try to moderate. Its as under control as the community allows, its not something that we could viably deal with. As far as hero/trusted members scamming, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about the long con. How does one see the signs of a scam if none are given, or the company/person in question has been genuine in the past proving their worth? Tradefortress is the only serial scammer that comes to mind having been on the default trust system, but then again default trust isn't necessarily about who is trustworthy, its about who can give accurate feedback. Anyone who cannot give accurate feedback is pruned by whoever is above them, else the person above them risks losing their credibility. I dont think holding the forums accountable for human behavior is fair.

Nope, the trust system isn't moderated. Moderators wont nor have the ability to alter feedback.

Not really, thats how the trust system is meant to work, if a 0 post 0 activity newbie wants to give you negative trust, they are welcome to, if someone percieves that as damaging to their reputation if no evidence to support their claim is given, then they might as well stop using the trust system, because they are using it wrong.


I dont know if I understand the situation the same as you do, as far as I know, I probably see 3-5 cases of newbies being distructive per day, so from whats being reported, we already have it under controll. The staff can't handle problem individuals if no one brings it to our attention, so I would say rather than ignoring them, report them then ignore them. If that isn't a good enough answer, what would you suggest? As I've already mentioned issues from newbies tend to be a very small % of the report que.

I am very adamant in my fight against the pointless proposition to bring back newbie jail. I have personal experience on both sides of it. I delayed signing up for these forums for a couple months electing to use a buddy's account, as I didn't want to deal with it. If I didn't have that buddy, I probably would have just passed on Bitcointalk. I also have dealt with the whitelist requests and such as a moderator during the newbie section's existance, it is not fun and incredibly staff intensive. In addition to those reasons, newbies were encouraged to post, "hello" and a few other spam posts to be allowed access to the forum, which in itself is a problem. Think about it from this point of view, if newbie jail was brought back, what would change for the worse?

• Someone who's mining rig was on fire would have to wait for a solution
• Meta ban appeals would not exist (although newbies have always been allowed to post in local boards in addition to the newbie section, so I dont recall if Meta was one they could post in)
• someone who just found out about bitcoin who is truely excited and looking for into would be told they can't ask questions
• Far less moderator time spent on other more important issues, as they are constantly watching the newbies penned in their sections

Its not about discriminating against new registered members, its about making them even bigger targets for scammers. Hey, why not scam them, they can't speak out against us. I haven't seen a single case where trust spam has been an issue, but if you have examples, please feel free.

Not true, I'd argue that more people are banned for spamming without signatures than spamming with signatures daily. Its really up to what people report that decides how quickly we catch someone being disruptive. True that more people report others with paid advertising signatures, but we also catch a lot of people who are spamming either to farm accounts or prepare an account for a paid ad signature.

To respond to the OP, there is a ban for every type of rule that is broken, there isn't a set time frame for each ban type, it has to do with severity, frequency, etc.

There is no reasonable limit that we could place that would prevent spam. Newbie jail would create a 4 hour bottleneck, and I dont mean that everytime a spammer/scammer wanted to create a new account, it would take them an additional 4 hours, I mean as a whole working system, 4 hours after it was implemented, things would be back to how they are. Its just creating a que line which means that spammer who created 5 accounts, will just have to wait a few hours, and while they are waiting, why not make some more accounts so there is a steady stream?

The reason it wont be implemented back again, is it has provably done nothing to prevent people from making new accounts for a malicious purposes, but it does discourage actual new members to join.

What about the other part where it said what you were banned for? As far as I know, its not possible for an admin to ban someone without filling in a reason. If you check the other people with threads about their ban, all screen shots say, "for insubstanial posts + signature" or "spamming" or something similar.

As far as your appeal that was sent to Theymos, it will be read. It might take a day or two, but it will be read. If you don't recieve a response, that means the appeal is denied and you should just wait out your ban to avoid ban extension. If you weren't give a specific amount of time until your ban expires, that means its permanent. However, if you don't break any rules ie don't ban evade, you can appeal to have the perma ban lifted in 30 days with a decent success rate.

What did the ban message say?

correct, english only in non local boards. However an exception was made here. Sue me.

Why? Who needs a photo of someone for $0.30? For what purpose would someone sell their image for 30 cents lol? What prevents people from just going onto google images and finding thousands of pictures of people?

I would question anyone who got involved in this in any way, there is no benefit and so much potential for abuse. Sounds very scammy.


*edit* I didn't want to make another post, as it would end up being spam in itself. Gonna update this with a picture of me



BTC can be sent to the BTC address in my profile: 1JXwGd1N8eP4WWMP6mLe6UNAycDhzqvhJo

Thanks dooders.

Have you tried stopping whatever you were doing that got you banned?

you can try amagi

https://www.amagimetals.com/gold/fractional-gold/1-5-gram

Keeping in mind, you can't see someone's posts that were deleted in their post history. None of those?

Yes, shipping within the US is included. If you are outside of the country, shipping costs can be negotiated.

The first one was indeed obviously illegal. The second one, not as much, and the third is definitely not illegal. But yes, illegal goods aren't allowed on the forum, if you see them you can report them and they can be removed. This is a public forum, not a deepweb site.

You mean Tomatocage seems to protect him for some reason. Tomatocage is the only one who can remove Vod, unless Theymos removes Tomatocage from depth 1. With that minor exception that is pretty unlikely to happen, unless Tomatocage messes up majorly. Staff aren't involved, they don't even make up the majority of the default trust list. We can't send a pm saying, "Hey buddy, remove/keep Vod or else" regardless of whether each individual staff member agrees that Vod is default trustworthy.

A lot of your points have to do with Staff interference in the trust system, Staff have no say on the default trust system unless its their own branch. For example last night when I saw the BayAreaCoins thread, I watched it, and was waiting to see how he responded. I agreed that it was abuse, and if he could not see what was wrong with the negative feedback that he had left, I would have removed him from my list as well. Badbear, dserrano5, Hostfat, or myself cannot tell anyone else how to moderate their trust list, no one on the default trust list can. Hypothetically speaking Theymos could, but Canaryinthemine is the only case of anyone from depth level 1 being removed, and that was because Canary was not attentive enough to their trust list.

Vod is still on the default trust list under Tomatocage because Tomatocage believes that Vod is more of an asset than a liability.

We don't go searching out people who have signatures, people are just more prone to report people with flashy advertisement signatures as their spam is more noticable. How it works: someone reports a person's post in a thread for being off topic/spam whatever. We then read the thread to see if it is indeed off topic/insubstantial/against the rules if that is needed (Ie not a +1 or smiley face post) then we check that user's post history to see if they have a history of insubstantial posts. If not, the post is deleted and we move on. If they do, then the moderator posts the ban request and reason with evidence for Badbear/Theymos to review (As only Admins can temporary ban people (thank's SMF!)) it is then reviewed by an admin who does the banning.

Something to note, the only people the public really see get banned are those who make threads about it in meta. With that, the new trend of spamming in Meta as moderators are more careful about removing posts in Meta, giving the people "appealing their spam bans" the ability to spam posts while they are banned. I'd agree with the fact that there are more people with paid advertisement signatures that are banned daily than those without, but I could probably argue that they have more motivation to break the rules than anyone else, and people with paid sigs also make up a very large portion of the community.

My point being, if you have never been banned, you then get a paid advertising signature and continue posting how you have in the past, you aren't going to get a ban just because of the advertising signature. If you let your post quality deteriorate to meet quotas as tends to happen, then you do risk being banned.

Sure thing, yeah its on Theymos' mind now, its just a matter of getting dserrano and theymos online at the same time. So it should be done within a reasonable amount of time. As the thread is concluded as far as information goes, I'm going to lock it as I'm trying to discourage the people who post in meta just to up their post count, but if the feature isn't added in the next day or two I'll unlock it.