I don't see a problem with it as long as he isn't actively impersonating him.

I'm glad to hear that, rock on .

Sorted.  

Remember, the secret question/answer is basically an easier to guess second password, and the hashes for the answer (that was leaked) was a simpler version of the password hashes (which means easier to brute force).  


Mod bans don't look like that, anything with something more than the generic "You have been banned by a forum moderator..." is admin applied.

You should read up on the security on some of the password managers, it's pretty impressive, but nothing is perfect. The entire database is encrypted, typing the master password supports Secure Desktop, and the autotype functionality also fools most keyloggers with Two Channel AutoType. Also supports two factor with a master file, which can be on a USB stick or wherever else.

No he agrees (in general, I don't know about the finer points), and there will be changes eventually. Lack of time, and a general unwillingness to significantly modify the current forum when a new one is under development are the main reasons it hasn't been done yet.


See above, and that would be a significant time investment to essentially run campaigns for them, with nothing in return. I'm also not sure how I feel about the forum inserting itself into the business deals of others. Seems a little... Big Brother-ish.

In my experience so far, banning has little effect, the compensation and incentive is too much. It doesn't really have the desired result of reducing the spam. This isn't a problem that can be solved with more moderation. Consider the change from post based ranks to activity based ranks a while back, you could make hero member in no time at all as long as you posted enough. A lot of people ended up getting banned, and eventually we went to activity based ranks. It removed the incentive to spam posts, reduced moderation, reduced bannings, and overall lead to a better forum. Leaving the cookie jar on the table and smacking people every time they try to take one, instead of just moving the cookie jar is a waste of time and ends up in lots of unnecessary conflict.
 
Though sig campaigns have completely undone that, and we are back where we started.


This forum has existed for a long time without signature campaigns. Sig campaigns came about because this is an active forum. Sig campaigns actually harm the forum in several ways, and not just the random sig spam.

1. it decreases forum revenue via advertising
2. that in turn decreases compensation for staff
3. more spam, in conjunction with point 2 accounts for the current state of the forum
4. increases workload on staff, along with less compensation mentioned above, means things that aren't sig spam go unhandled
5. Broken windows theory, the presence of spam, then encourages more spam
I'm gonna stop here because the rest will be subjective and just lead to more circular arguments, but I could go on.

The forum only had the one ad spot for a reason, sig campaigns make it look like crap. If the competition would be too stiff, adding more spots would certainly be preferable to sig campaigns, maybe some of it could even go to posters, I don't know if that's legally feasible though, with tax concerns and all.
 
Stopping it temporarily would have no effect, people would keep posting in order to "prove a point" and increase their activity for the inevitable return.

Disabling signatures entirely would affect innocent users as well. A way to disable signature ads specifically would be good.  Ignore certain signatures (which would ignore all of that type), and maybe an auto ignore at a certain point is probably the best solution.

We aren't going to start handing out user information to businesses here just to accommodate sig campaigns.

Also not going to dictate the terms of other people's business deals for them.

Won't help, they'll just use multiple accounts.

The post you were replying to was deleted, along with several others (13), all at the same time.

Looking at the thread there's a reply to your post that was missed though.

Yes, empty means there isn't one. Double check and make sure it's actually empty, and that there aren't any white spaces (cursor there, backspace and then delete). 

His message is fine, PGP signed messages contain a timestamp, and are associated with your email address.

It is.

Signed on 2015-05-24 04:14 by michael_m+pgp@mm.st (Key ID: 0xDAB591E7).
The signature is valid and the certificate's validity is fully trusted.


All PGP keys are hosted on public keyservers. They're also hosted on the forum's servers, though you shouldn't rely on that solely. https://bitcointalk.org/theymos.asc, https://bitcointalk.org/BadBear.asc

https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=theymos&op=index

For the record.



 

Ban evasion and trolling.

You're using it wrong. Watchlist was created as a replacement for show replies, largely because of this, and because you couldn't follow a thread without posting in it.

Watchlist has all the same features as show new replies, and more that are missing like this. Use it instead.

Minus time restrictions, same for everyone.

I gave you a chance already when I temp banned your accounts initially. Then you continued posting on yet more accounts. Do you feel you deserve yet another chance?

Your trust score has nothing do with whether your feedback shows up as trusted or not.

For your feedback to show up as trusted, you would need to appear in one's trust list, or extended trust network (ie joe has bob in his trust list, bob has you in his trust list, then you are in joe's trust network and your feedback would be trusted).

Not blind no, but relying on a snapshot of a trust list at a single point in time is going to give you outdated information, trust lists aren't static. I did add you back to my trust list.

I remove or limit them sometimes when they are either excessively annoying or distracting, they definitely shouldn't be interfering with other topic subjects.