There's just not enough women here to constitute an entire section for women; also, the last time a thread was started geared towards women, it was trolled to death by the usual riff-raff that have difficulties seeing women as people.
Also this, it would be the most trolled forum after custom hardware/securities. It was quite disturbing. |
|
|
|
|
That would be problematic, need to vet every poster that posts there, on a forum where people tend to value their anonymity?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, just don't feed them. Either they'll step it up and eventually go too far, or they'll get bored and find a new way to pass the time.
Gweedo is just annoying to me because he's constantly posting about his ignores and drives threads off topic.
|
|
|
|
I couldn't imagine the outcome if he actually slipped.
He'd land on his feet then roundhouse kick the truck off the road. |
|
|
|
Even John, an admin here, thought it was such FUD that he moved it out of the press board where you posted it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264339.0Won't say I agree or disagree with leaving you feedback for it, but it isn't unjustified. Your argument that I posted lies is that other people said so? Yes, I do trust John infinitely more than I trust you, especially after the..."speculation" I've seen you post so far. It's also slightly amusing that you berate for using what someone else said, but at the same time want me to debate what someone else said. |
|
|
|
Even John, an admin here, thought it was such FUD that he moved it out of the press board where you posted it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264339.0Won't say I agree or disagree with leaving you feedback for it, but it isn't unjustified. |
|
|
|
I don't understand why the very same user is banned or not banned, depending on what IP address they use.
Does my personal "spam likeliness" depend on the IP address that I'm using? Certainly not. I'm still the very same person, no matter from where I log in.
Why don't you give user-based bans, instead of IP-based bans?
We do, sometimes it's both. Problem is that mods can't see ip's (thankfully) so I have no way of knowing if someone is using their real ip or a proxy when I ban them. If I knew they were using tor I wouldn't bother. So you can either suck it up, or we can violate everyone's privacy by letting ips be seen by many more people. The former is the more desirable option, though more Inconvenient for you. |
|
|
|
Badbear says about me: "OP has already spread misinformation and lies about me as well", where did I do this?
After it became apparent that this was a lost cause I posted: "Somehow Goat has managed to wheedle or pay his way into that group[the default trust list]"
And this translates into me "Spreading misinformation and lies about Badbear"?
You've pretty much proved goats case here, because you're lying. You post speculation as fact, or don't know the difference between the two, or you're trolling. Somehow = speculation != asserting facts Yes I was speculating how Goat got onto the trust list. It appears there are 2 ways to get into someone's downstream trust: 1) They leave you public trust feed (ie I bought 10BTC of Goat and the deal went smoothly)...Goat is now "trusted" by you, and so therefore trusted by others that trust you 2) There also appears be some kind of private trust system, as you have not left any public trust feedback for Goat, but he appears in your downstream trust I was speculating as to how Goat has gotten into the 2nd level default trust list without any public trust feedback from any 1st level default trust list members? (ie it must be option #2). And what was the reason for privately adding some to the trust downstream? Is this not a topic worth questioning? Is there a reasonable answer to why this has occurred? And was Goat in your downstream trust prior to 2013-11-10? You have no idea how the trust system works, neither 1 and 2 are true. Being on someone's trust list isn't determined by feedback. I haven't left feedback for most people on my trust list. And yes he was on it before that date. |
|
|
|
Badbear says about me: "OP has already spread misinformation and lies about me as well", where did I do this?
After it became apparent that this was a lost cause I posted: "Somehow Goat has managed to wheedle or pay his way into that group[the default trust list]"
And this translates into me "Spreading misinformation and lies about Badbear"?
You've pretty much proved goats case here, because you're lying. You post speculation as fact, which is exactly what the oroginal issue was about, or don't know the difference between the two, or you're trolling. |
|
|
|
I'm sad Mighty Morphin Power Rangers ended last year  . |
|
|
|
I'd be okay with that if the specifics like link removal were automated. And your welcome, and thanks for the thanks  . |
|
|
|
|
It's the easiest way to spread the word that ref spam isn't kosher. It's probably the sole reason that people who do post it, get called out and told it isn't acceptable by members.
|
|
|
|
|
That's just the leather upper on his boot sticking up.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know then, maybe someone else will.
|
|
|
|
|
Weird. Did you try different child boards maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
It's under the additional options section at the bottom under the text box.
|
|
|
|
Edit: Don't think I will get banned, that is cool.
Yeah. Well, at least I won't request a ban for you. I'm just totally shocked and amazed that out of all of the Staff, Global Moderators, and Administrators that viewed that thread, only two people did anything about it. Yeah, it's fun, I get it, but I don't like to see this kind of thing done at the expense of a thread that does bring up a good point that deserves to be reviewed. The fact that certain people in that thread appeared to be immune to having their posts deleted for being off-topic proves the point that the thread was trying to make. Maybe TradeFortress was given special privileges after all?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
