I don't care if you say it's a lie, or if you think it's a personal attack, or what random people on the internet think of me. And you're not going to be a helpful admin and answer questions?
I balance how helpful I'm going to be, with how helpful it's actually going to be. I don't see how carrying on a conversation with you is going to be helpful. Prove to me it isn't a waste of my time, and I might change my mind. |
|
|
|
|
It wasn't because of that specific post, it was because of a pattern of trolling lately, and incessant bump spam.
I'm not going to bother answering your questions though, whatever they were, because based on what I've seen it's a waste of time, and I'm not keen on that.
Meta isn't here for you to carry out your personal vendettas, please stop. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
This is odd, don't usually see a gain on the weekends, just the opposite. Just a short term sell imO! It's a huge bollinger band run...it's all math!  ur a band run  |
|
|
|
|
I don't care how many accounts you have. I care if you're spamming, not having a sig doesn't mean you aren't spamming.
I'm not going to lift the ban.
|
|
|
|
Yes, exclusions must be greater than inclusions. Criteria 3. I made three improvements to the Trust system: Firstly, there is now a neutral rating type. Neutral ratings don't affect a person's trust score at all. On a person's trust page, positive ratings are bold, neutral ratings are italic, and negative ratings are red bold-italic. Secondly, it is now possible to exclude users in your trust list. Prefix a person's name with a tilde character (~) if you want to exclude them. If you exclude someone, then you will never see that person's ratings as trusted, even if the person is trusted by other people in your trust network. Exclusions also travel through the trust network. If one person in your trust network trusts someone and another person excludes them, then whether or not they're seen as trusted for you is decided using these rules: 1. If someone at a lower depth (ie, closer to your trust list) disagrees with someone at a higher depth, then the person at the lowest depth wins. Due to this, no one can overrule anything you put in your trust list directly. 2. If multiple people at the same depth disagree, then the rating type that is most popular among these people wins. For example, say that you have three people in your trust list. If two of them trust someone and one of them excludes that person, then the person will not be excluded. 3. If an equal number of people at the same depth include and exclude a person, then the person will be included.Finally, I added an easier-to-understand way of viewing your trust network to the trust settings page. The number in parentheses is the number of people in the preceding (lower) depth level who trust the person minus the number of people at the preceding depth level who exclude that person. This view contains slightly less information than the hierarchical view -- there's a link to the old view at the bottom of the trust settings page. Also, the maximum trust depth is now 4 instead of 3, though it's probably still not a good idea to go above 2. |
|
|
|
There are 2 types of bans. Autobans. Isn't what it sounds like, it means someone pressed the ban button, but it's automatically carried out, as opposed to be manually entered. Though there is a mod or two running scripts because of the spammers. This results in the message You were banned by a forum moderator, email xxx. Both global mods and admins use this, so it isn't a guarantee it was a moderator, just more likely. I use autoban instead of manual bans for permanent bans because it's faster and more efficient. All bans in the modlog are autobans, and permanent. Autobans ban the account involved only, you can still log in and do everything normally, just can't post or pm. It also adds units of evil to the IPs used, a new account created using these IPs will need to pay a fee. Units of evil increase with additional bans. Nuking is essentially an autoban+deletion of posts. Manual bans are only available to admins, and are generally configured the same way as above, though it's possible to increase the scope of the ban to include things like registering from certain emails/providers, ips, subnets, hostnames, etc. Can also add multiple accounts to the same ban. It's also possible to prevent banned users from logging in at all using the banned account, this will prevent them from being able to read the forum and access pm's too though, so I rarely use it. These result in the customized reason for the ban+duration, insubstantial posts or whatever. New accounts do not face any automatic restrictions beyond units of evil, a human needs to verify it. IPs alone are generally not conclusive evidence. It is true that they can easily make new account and start posting again but they'll have to build everything from zero. Remember that this behaviour (ban evading) is not allowed and the new account will immediately gets perma-banned too if the Staff know about it.
So anyone with a copy of TOR can easily evade ban if they have alts and use different IPs on each? Varying degrees of easy, being anonymous isn't as easy as people think it is, but yes. I would rather people be able to protect their privacy, even if it means it makes my duties more difficult, or impossible. |
|
|
|
Edit: Maybe I missed the recent updates or something, but should a edit show up a dotted line in my post time?
5 or 10 minute grace period, I forget exactly. |
|
|
|
Eh you know, I'm still not clear what happens when you create a new account to make a ban appeal(from the same IP ofc), does it have the perma-ban limitations as well? Asking this question, what exactly are the perma-ban limitations? Cause OP already seems to have made another post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1273168.msg13130198#msg13130198And yeah, reaaaal bad grammar. Gets banned again, and if original ban was temporary, it's extended, possibly permanent (depends). |
|
|
|
Even if his post quality is awesome and the ban was unfair then that might take at least 2 months to get any response from the administrative level because of poor handling of ban issues.
Or maybe we just ignore this garbage when we see it. |
|
|
|
The thing you should understand about hypotheticals is they're not a substitute for the equal sign. When I present you with the hypothetical "why make murder illegal," I do not mean to suggest that !(proscribing account sales) = !(proscribing murder). There are, indeed, differences.
The text you have quoted was a response to TL;DR: "account sales are a necessary evil, better than they happen here than elsewhere."
If you feel that account sales are desirable, like gun sales in your example, feel free to explain why.
I don't care about account sales, I care about promoting free trade and open discussion as much as possible. I don't "allow" things because I personally find them desirable, I like them, or approve of them. It's a general ideological position, this isn't going to change. There are several other forums where people can go if that's what they want. |
|
|
|
tell me if the owners of theses projects had a bought accounts or not.
If people die without getting shot, why make murder illegal? Is that your question? >No one can stop a scammer from committing a fraud with a bought account. No one is saying that people can't scam without buying an account. A bought account simply makes it easier. I've always found this to be a flawed argument, and not sure why you stick to it. One, murder, is the crime. The other, account selling, is a tool that can be used to commit a crime. A more apt analogy would be to compare account sales to gun or knife sales, tools that can be used to commit the crime. It also makes the posts much more amusing to read when you picture a soccer mom screaming about how guns are evil and should be banned, though I suppose that depends on your stance about that. |
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind I'm not just looking at the posts from that one account, it's both. Given the style of posting, threads they are posting in, and the frequency, and the fact you need more than one account, it's fairly obvious it's sig spam.
I'll take a closer look later and may reduce it to 7 days because it isn't the worst either, but it is sig spam.
|
|
|
|
TRUMP SURVEILLANCE STATE WILL COMBAT ISLAM... He was then asked if heightened surveillance would require the registration of Muslims in a database and mandate special identification. “We’re going to have to—we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.” ... The program had the characteristics of an advanced police state—mapping of Muslim communities, photo and video surveillance, police informants, police “rakers” (ethnic cops who blended in Muslim communities), the widespread tracking of individuals and intelligence databases of the sort Trump endorsed. Muslims sued the NYPD over the program. In October the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals found the Muslim plaintiffs raised sufficient allegations of equal-protection violations and reversed a decision made last year by a judge to dismiss the case. Others have gone further than Trump in calling for draconian measures aimed at Muslims. For instance, David Bowers, a Democrat mayor in Virginia. “I’m reminded that President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt compelled to sequester Japanese foreign nationals after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and it appears that the threat of harm to America from ISIS now is just as real and serious as that from our enemies then,” Bowers said. ... http://www.infowars.com/trump-surveillance-state-will-combat-islam/ If Rand Paul has better ideas, let's hear them. And please don't go off on a talkfest a la Ron Paul about isolationism. Let's hear the specific ideas that will combat terrorism by terrorists. This is a thread about Trump, not Paul. Do you support this idea? Do you think the government will use it responsibly, and not abuse it by expanding what religion/ideology/race/class of people they think are terrorists? Do you see something wrong with the government enacting policies and agencies like this as a solution to problems they created? |
|
|
|
|
Looks like it. Along with another donator account that hasn't posted since 2013, locked them both.
|
|
|
|
Trump is like any of the other crooks running for the Presidency. All of them want to keep the stupid System, and simply tweak it one way or another. Let me show you what would fix it all. If a President would show the people how to legally and lawfully beat the IRS (how to volunteer out, because the income tax is truly voluntary), and then he put into effect the things necessary to shut down the Federal Reserve Bank... and one more thing - if he set freely usable Bitcoin up as the national currency - the strength of the world would collapse, but the strength of America would rise higher than ever. None of the Presidents and candidates are worth the trouble that it takes to write even a short Bitcointalk post about them.  Both the primary political parties are corrupt to the core, it's really too bad our voting system punishes or ignores people for voting for anything other than the 2 primary candidates. Instant runoff voting ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) would allow people to vote for the candidate they truly want to vote for, while ensuring your vote isn't wasted, or at worst, benefits the other party by splitting the vote. I doubt it'll ever be changed, it benefits neither of the 2 parties to change the system to one that would benefit third parties. Though it would eliminate the need for primaries, and stop populists like Trump from hijacking them, and holding the party hostage by threatening to run as an independent. Democrats aren't even a party, it's just a coalition of groups who say whatever the people want to hear, or what polls well. That's not entirely a bad thing since they are supposed to be representatives of the people, but when you consider things like 40% of millennials support restricting speech that's offensive to minorities, it becomes dangerous to concede to popular opinions. Republicans are no better, they spend their time sucking up to big corporations for donations, while trampling over the people. |
|
|
|
(Sorry for the long post, but BadBear mentioned leaving a space between users - if people prefer shorter posts I can post these to Pastebin and then link to it here)
You misunderstood Badbear. He had acted on a list made by mexxer-2. He asked mexxer-2 to leave a space after the original list, in case he edits it and adds more users. Codishmumu and baristor have already been perma-banned. Yes, I meant between new additions and the old list if it's edited, I'm not going to remember where I left off. And I do prefer links to the profile, less clicking around. Putting the name next to the link is preferred as well, I use multiple monitors, tabs and windows. I multitask heavily, it helps keep things straight to have a name for reference instead of a number. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
