Now do a barrel roll!
Don't tell me you're too blind to see In west Philadelphia born and raised After reading this thread the next thread I saw had the last reply by user Carlton Banks. Not sure what the universe is trying to tell me. Time for a fresh prince marathon? |
|
|
|
Banned some of them. Kept clicking on page after page of posts expecting something besides welcome posts, but no. Hello. Welcome to Bitcointalk. Please do not visit the cave to the south. There is a badbear in there.
There's also a grue lurking around somewhere in the dark. |
|
|
|
Thank you for taking action, theymos. Should I lock this thread?
If you consider it resolved might as well, but he hasn't paid still. |
|
|
|
|
That would be better, at the least it would give people a heads up that there is activity unknown to them, and would save admins time.
|
|
|
|
This is fairly common knowledge and is why so many threads are addressed directly to Theymos.
This, I'm pretty sure most knew that already. If you guys want to waste your time with assumptions, well it's your time to waste. I don't make it a habit to waste my own time correcting it though. |
|
|
|
I think it all went downhill when the mods seemed to defend BFL instead of slapping the scammer tag on them. then everyone guessed its because of the advertisement vested interest
[...] We aren't the one sleeping in the bed, you guys are. We just change the sheets occasionally. I take it you're not going to even bother answering the actual question there. The one being about BFL scammer tag and advertising revenue. If so, this thread is pointless. There was a question there? Looks like statements to me. Please don't act dense. You know perfectly well what I and the OP meant. Let's do it this way then: "Will the moderators ban BFL from advertising at these forums? Will the moderators hand out SCAMMER tags to BFL employees/accounts?" You do realize that mods can't actually do either one of those right? |
|
|
|
I think it all went downhill when the mods seemed to defend BFL instead of slapping the scammer tag on them. then everyone guessed its because of the advertisement vested interest
[...] We aren't the one sleeping in the bed, you guys are. We just change the sheets occasionally. I take it you're not going to even bother answering the actual question there. The one being about BFL scammer tag and advertising revenue. If so, this thread is pointless. There was a question there? Looks like statements to me. |
|
|
|
I think it all went downhill when the mods seemed to defend BFL instead of slapping the scammer tag on them. then everyone guessed its because of the advertisement vested interest
I think the forum created their own messy bed and have to sleep in it until they have higher standards but in this economy we know that is impossible
such are the times
We aren't the one sleeping in the bed, you guys are. We just change the sheets occasionally. |
|
|
|
Ugh, scamcoin  |
|
|
|
|
Bump spam, 2 days. Previous warnings have been ineffective, so just getting his attention.
|
|
|
|
Again, false
You get +14 in activity if you posted ONCE in a two week period
Just confirming this is correct, only one post is needed to maintain activity. |
|
|
|
|
Only surprising thing I see is that people are still reading gweedo's posts, his ignore button is highlighted for a reason.
|
|
|
|
Seriously? You just removed a post that critisised something? I see you're all in for "no censorship"
No, I removed the post because you didn't read anything I said in CoinChat, or in the post above, or in the OP. Also, you have a new PM that I see you're ignoring. Criticizing it? Nah, you're trying to shit on me. I wanted to record who wanted to use the forum, that's what I'm doing. LOL, that's censoring!! I don't define deleting annoying or trolling posts as censoring. TBH, Boelens doesn't like me and I don't like him, most of his arguments are purely so that he can annoy me or try to bash me. Op This might be the exact reason why people like MNW are banned (he was handpicked from the group of trolls to be banned due trolling). It's all about personal relations and right now you are doing the censoring because of personal relation. There's no much point for you to talk about non-censoring forums anymore, right? It just doesn't work this way. MNW doesn't attack theymos because of personal relation. Boelens attacks me because of personal relation. What? Are you serious? They've been a part of the same community for years, theymos gave matt a scammer tag not once, but twice, and also an untrustworthy tag, not to mention matt was a mod for a while and got demoted for the same reasons as the scammer tag, matt has also been banned at least 7 or 8 times in his time here, but you think it's nothing personal? Shit between them is far more personal than between you and Boelens. If you want to make a new forum, great, but don't pretend that your particular brand of censorship is more fair just because. |
|
|
|
|
Why would you click on a thread just to read the last page?
The first page or two are the only useful ones to read, any further than that is usually people bickering or something other topic entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
Most link shorteners are filtered due to phishers/malware.
|
|
|
|
I prefer the "Hidden" option. It can be seen from the comments in the trust system that when someone gets negative feedback they often give back negative feedback. The private option would stop the tit-for-tat of -1 votes.
Another option could be to publicly show the votes from each of the member groups. This way no one can tell who voted for whom and it would help stop people gaming the system using socks. For example, the following distribution would look a little suspicious:
member123 [+5]
Brand New: [+10, -0]
Newbie: [+0, -0]
Jr. Member: [+0, -0]
Member: [+0, -0]
Full Member: [+0, -0]
Sr. Member: [+0, -0]
Hero Member: [+0, -5]
I will do this. Not sure how yet but it's definitely something worth implementing. It's not critical for now as I manually send passwords to people asking for them. I like this idea the best, opening it will just mean more drama and fake votes from retaliation (disclosure, haven't used it yet). |
|
|
|
it is not true we can check out but we cant leave as we are not aloud to delete our accounts
It isn't your account, it belongs to the forum/website. You're allowed to use it once you agree to the user agreement you skipped over when you registered your account, you can put a unique name on it, you can make a password to restrict access, but in the end it still belongs to the website. Same applies to say...online game accounts (not necessarily paid before you think of world of warcraft or something, free games are the same), you don't own them either and you can be banned from accessing them at any time. Again, I'm speaking strictly from a property rights point of view since that's the direction the discussion has taken, with the claims of censorship and violation of free speech. Just trying to get you to see the big picture here, beyond a sole account.
have you seen the amount of old accounts that are popping back up after all this time the accounts cant be phished cant be brute forced that only leaves to options forum compromised or admin are resetting passwords and using the themselves or selling them
( I know of at least 1 user that regally hacks the forum so I am sure there are more )
All I've seen from you is guesses and speculation, but if you have something helpful to share, please share it with the people that need it (not me). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
