|
2
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Giveaway threads are not allowed
|
on: June 09, 2021, 07:30:06 PM
|
Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections. From now on, posting or replying to such threads could result in being banned. Existing threads will be locked.
Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your threads. You can't offer to pay people who post their addresses, usernames, etc. You can do giveaways off-site and link to the giveaway page in a thread, but you can't give people any bonus for replying to your thread.
[.....]
Heya, i wanna do a private airdrop for a asset on the stellar chain. My only goal is to get more people creating a trustline to that specific asset and then answer with their federation or wallet address so i can send them their token. Is that still ok over here?  Regards, hacky Seems like your giveaway incentivizes posting within one or more specific threads ("answer with their federation or wallet address") in exchange for altcoins ("a asset on the stellar chain"). So no, it's not allowed. You're free to post an announcement for your giveaway in Bounties (Altcoins) but accept entries via Bitcointalk PM (either ask users to PM you or PM a user specifically created for the airdrop). You can also accept entries off-site (e.g. via Google Forms). |
|
|
|
|
3
|
Economy / Games and rounds / Giveaways and games that pay out altcoins do NOT belong here
|
on: June 04, 2021, 12:52:59 PM
|
Giveaways, games, raffles, airdrops and other promotional campaigns that pay out a part or all of their rewards in altcoins do not belong in Games and Rounds. Giveaways and other similar promotional campaigns that pay out in altcoins and do not require users to post in your thread / topic to participate can be be posted in Bounties (Altcoins). Make sure to read the stickied threads in the aforementioned board before you post there. Giveaways that require users to post in one or more specific threads / topics in exchange for altcoins are prohibited forum-wide. The same forum-wide restrictions apply to social media / bounty campaigns that require a user to complete a low effort task (e.g. liking, following, subscribing, retweeting, tweeting a single tweet, joining a channel or group, etc.) and post in one or more specific threads / topics (either as a direct requirement or as proof of participation) in exchange for altcoins. |
|
|
|
|
4
|
Other / Meta / Re: A modest proposal to support the forum team
|
on: June 04, 2021, 12:19:18 PM
|
While others in the thread have already covered the most common ways to help the forum, I'll add a few more: - If you have sMerit left over, merit high quality posts (especially if they were made by someone of a lower rank as that'll help them to rank up).
- If you have something to promote, bid on the forum's monthly ad auction thread. The link to the current auction thread can be found at the top of https://bitcointalk.org/adrotate.php?adinfo. You both get to advertise and support the forum.
- If you don't mind ads, disable ad block. If the ad is promoting something that you're interested in, check it out. New paying customers coming in via the ads is a win-win-win for all parties involved: the user finds a service / website he needed, the service / website gets a return on their ad investment and Bitcointalk shows that its ads are effective at attracting customers. Don't randomly click on ads you couldn't care less about though - that helps no one.
- Offer services / goods on the forum. The marketplace boards (both regular and in the altcoin sections) are a big part of Bitcointalk. The more commercial activity there, the more likely business-minded users will choose Bitcointalk as their main platform for commerce.
However, as people have pointed out, there's a reason why Bitcointalk removed its donation address - it doesn't need financial support at the moment. As for mods, if you really want to gift a moderator (or any other user for that matter) some BTC, most moderators have a Bitcoin address in their profile. Click on their username and look for the "Bitcoin address:" field. If you're gonna pick a moderator to gift some BTC to, pick one of the dedicated board mods (who isn't a global moderator or admin). |
|
|
|
|
5
|
Other / Meta / Re: Admins, plz, add search to PM
|
on: June 02, 2021, 12:02:58 PM
|
|
"Search Messages", top left side in your first screenshot, under "Preferences". If you don't remember any single word from that PM, type in "a" (without parentheses) or some other common short word (e.g. "the", "I", "you", etc.) into the "Search for:" field and that should do. Make sure to fill in the "by user:" field as well.
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Other / Meta / Re: User banned - Possibly misunderstanding the idea of a regular social bounty
|
on: May 23, 2021, 08:53:20 PM
|
If I understood the premise correctly (you don't have to post in either of the threads to participate in the LTC part of the giveaway / low-effort bounty) then yes, that's completely fine. That's good to know. I understand the point you made at the start of this post, but considering how difficult it is to interpret the rules of Bitcointalk by regular users sometimes, and the fact that OP had clear intentions to give out bitcoin by escrowing the coins, could he be pardoned and have the permanent ban changed to a 2-week temp ban instead? His original thread would have to be re-written to be in line with the rules, either the way I explained in my previous post, or any other way that is better and/or more suitable. Each ban is reviewed case-by-case and the decisions the staff make in this particular case don't need to have repercussions on other similar cases just like unbanning a user who copy/pasted wont make all copy/pasters unbanned. For the record, I have not participated in the campaign by OP nor do I know him. Just in case someone asks. But I don't think that with him gone this community will either be safer, cleaner or a better place. The ban isn't permanent - it is (or was; see end of post) 30 days.
-quote snip-
Although I am still hitting my head against the wall to understand mprep's interpretation, the topic could just move to altcoin (bounty) section since it's obvious that intention of OP was not promoting LTC but paying in LTC (low value amount to avoid dust payment) and BTC to perform a task which is to tweet Elon. How would one determine if the task is not substantial. Those who will get paid in LTC was asked to make a certain tweet which was already given but those who will be paid in BTC was ask to make their own tweet, but it has to go with the original idea of OP. This is where it gets even worse. Initially OP had plan to pay everyone using BTC. But when I suggested him that he should consider paying the small amount using an ALT (possibly I suggested LTC) to avoid dust output of BTC he agreed. Then I revised the terms and give him the revised terms to update his original post. With years of experience if my understanding of rule is not clear then how would we expect a user like OP (who is very new to this forum) will understand this special rule correctly. In fact, this rule is becoming confusing as we speak. If we focus on only the responses of this topic we will see except mprep and maybe PN7, rest of us are thinking the thread was just fine and actually protesting the action that mprep has taken. How would you now apply the rule now when it's very clear that OP's intension was modified by me, and he reposted the topic after taking my suggestion. If it really is a bannable offence (let's say all of us are wrong but only mprep's interpretation is right) then does OP deserve ban, or it should be me? The intention is irrelevant - the task and payment method is what's at fault. I could say that I'm paying X amount of BTC in coin Y and that'd still count as incentivizing posting in exchange for altcoins since all you are doing is changing the way you measure the amount of coin Y. As for what task is considered substantial, that has to be assessed on a case-by case basis. I listed all the most common cases in the pinned thread in Bounties (Altcoins) of what's allowed and what's not but in situations where those examples don't apply, it's up to the mod to decide whether the bounty is something that's dodging (intentionally or otherwise) the spirit of the "no on-forum altcoin giveaways" rule or is it something that no longer resembles a giveaway in the amount of effort the participant has to undergo. As for who's at fault, the onus on complying with the rules falls on the person making the decision to give away altcoins. Obviously, if such an interpretation is being maliciously abused to run altcoin giveaways with impunity while burning random fall guys, the same punishment may be applied to the person "suggesting" the idea (though this far from what has happened here).
<...>
I am just wondering why low-effort and incentivized posting is allowed for bitcoin giveaways. Those are still spam posts even though bitcoin is the reward.
Cause only on-forum altcoin giveaways are prohibited as per forum policy. As to why, I can't look into theymos's head and tell definitively but if I had to guess it's a mix of (1) the forum being BitcoinTalk, (2) any amount of BTC given away being worth something as opposed to a coin that you could create out of thin air, (3) the policy being consistent (no exceptions for specific altcoins) and (4) altcoin giveaways in the past generating tons of spam both directly (large number of low value threads and posts) and indirectly (if a user who's just there for the giveaways needs to reach a certain rank, he's rather likely to just spam the forum till he reaches it).
I've also seen many casinos give away small amounts of Bitcoin credited to the user's account. Those amounts are often lower than the withdrawal fees, and those giveaways don't get banned.
One could argue this isn't Bitcoin, but a token on a website. I can't say this is better than paying LTC on-chain.
You could argue that but crediting a gambling site's balance with BTC is still a promise to give BTC (essentially sending funds to a custodial wallet). Now, there's an entire discussion on custodial wallets and coin ownership to be had there ("not your keys, not your coins" etc, etc), but the common-sense perceived obligation on the part of the custodian is that the wallet owner has ownership over what's stated in said wallet (both in terms of the type of coin and amount). As can be seen from past events, that obligation isn't always honored but the forum doesn't moderate scams. However, when it comes to LTC, you have to keep in mind that the forum considers it to be at the same level as No-Name-Coin that the dev could print billions of at no cost. So while most forum users would agree that LTC has a perceptible cost to acquire, there is no "established altcoin giveaways are good tho" rule for the sake of consistency and altcoins being second fiddle to the coin the forum was created for. This could change in the future (if theymos decides so) but I have no reason to believe anything of sort applies here.
Having read through all the arguments / points of view and (as I've mentioned) being on the fence myself about reducing the ban duration to 14 days, I've realized there's quite a bit of confusion and lack of information about this particular aspect of the "no on-forum altcoin giveaways" rule outside the altcoin sections. There's a reason I've started the unnoficial list of rules thread back in 2014 - information about how a regular user should behave was scarce and scattered all around the forum. So while I still believe that the banned user in question broke a number of rules by starting that thread, I no longer think the punishment fits the offense. Had the user ran a giveaway promoting a business, one could expect a much higher degree of professionalism and thus more thorough due diligence. However, since the user was just someone who felt like giving away BTC in the first place, considering the lack of a sticky in Games and Rounds I think this warrants a more lenient, albeit still rather strict treatment. Reduced ban duration to 14 days minus time already being banned. |
|
|
|
|
7
|
Other / Meta / Re: User banned - Possibly misunderstanding the idea of a regular social bounty
|
on: May 23, 2021, 12:24:56 AM
|
-snip-
-snip-
While theymos is much more lenient with the interpretation or application of other rules ("constructive free speech" and all), I have not seen this leniency in suspending creators for altcoin giveaways. The spirit of the rule, at least in my eyes, is "no altcoin giveaways, neither in their traditional form nor disguised as something else" and I don't see a reason to not apply that to someone who "didn't mean it" since quite a few who get banned for violating the rules legitimately "didn't mean it" or "didn't know". I've already explained (in a previous post in this thread) how an exception to such a policy could open up holes. Which would require even more exceptions to patch up. And while yes, theymos has stated that he doesn't believe in rule of law, he does believe in forum policy being consistent: <...>
However, forum policy must be consistent, and I'm not going to start deciding who's guilty and who's not (again).
<...>
While the big boss is free to make whatever judgments he wishes, the last thing I want my (a moderator's) judgment to be is arbitrary.
-quote snip-
The point 3 comes under point number 2, I believe. Low effort giveaways are allowed in BTC but not in altcoins (would be great if a mod can confirm) Yes, the "no incentivizing posting via low effort tasks in exchange for altcoins" is an extension of the "no on-forum altcoin" giveaways rule, since quite a few people moved on from just giving away altcoins to requiring users to retweet something or post a canned tweet (essentially complying with the letter of the rule but dodging the spirit of it). -quote snip-
You can't give altcoins or even BTC? I am asking because I have seen many instances where users were paid in BTC for posting their username. You can give away BTC in Games and Rounds. It's even mentioned in the thread you've quoted. -quote snip-
I agree and rules are quite strange because there are so many giveaways in that section that discuss the prize in BTC and might be paying out in USDT (which is a altcoin, we know) but just because OP made a mistake of mentioning LTC, he got banned. It hurts even more when someone as sincere as Royse777 was working with him because if there was slight doubt, it would be Royse777 who would have made it clear. I can only act on rule violations I see and can verify (and that applies for all rules). That's the nature of not being omniscient. If someone is secretly incentivizing posting in exchange for USDT, a user is free to report the PM asking for a USDT address, link to external evidence, etc.
Whatever professional courtesy is required, as long as the 'no altcoin giveaway' rule is going to remain as-is, I think there should be a warning in the games and rounds sub. Having forum members post a LTC address to receive payment for a low effort task is a violation of forum policy as currently implemented.
I also don't think it is entirely unreasonable for someone to read the forum rules, and in good-faith host a giveaway that gives away both an altcoin and bitcoin, and believe they are following the rules. Moderators are experts of forum rules and policy, but normal users are not. Assuming the person has not caused major problems in the past, I would argue for a reduced ban 'punishment' that is reduced by 1/2, or so.
It seems to me that the OP is trying to get his foot in the door in starting a business managing advertising campaigns, and is having trouble doing so due to high transaction fees when measured in USD. I would say that healthy competition in the marketplace benefits everyone and that when possible, barriers to entry into the marketplace should be low. As such, I would repeat my suggestion that the rules be changed to allow for on forum giveaways upon the host paying a fee that is intended to cover the cost of resources expanded by the forum associated with allowing the giveaway.
I've already PMed both Cyrus and hilariousandco about creating a new sticky thread in Games and Rounds yesterday, but they haven't responded yet. Regarding the duration, as I've mentioned, I didn't feel like it was my call considering that the altcoin incentive was rather clear and IIRC I have not seen theymos reduce ban duration for organizing altcoin giveaways. As for rule changes, that's something you're going to have to petition theymos - I don't really have much say in the matter.
This reminded me of that case when a bunch of members got temp bans for participating in a combined giveaway of bitcoin, tron, ethereum, XRP, and I think Litecoin. It might have been BitCasino that organized the whole event. The members got the chance to select which coin to get as a reward, those who selected altcoins got banned, those who wanted bitcoin weren't.
@mprep
Would this have been allowed?
- The same type of thread is posted in the same sub with the payment method being Bitcoin.
- OP makes a note that any payment below a certain amount will be made in Litecoin (to avoid Bitcoin dust payments) with a link that leads to a different thread in the altcoin bounty section.
- The linked bounty thread has a google spreadsheet where the users sign up after they have completed their social media bounty.
The LTC is being awarded as part of a social media bounty task like any other social media task in the bounty section that entails posting, tweeting, liking, etc. No altcoin is given away in Games & Rounds or Services section. There is also no incentivized low-effort posting because the users have to apply through a google spreadsheet.
Would that be allowed?
If I understood the premise correctly (you don't have to post in either of the threads to participate in the LTC part of the giveaway / low-effort bounty) then yes, that's completely fine. |
|
|
|
|
8
|
Other / Meta / Re: User banned - Possibly misunderstanding the idea of a regular social bounty
|
on: May 21, 2021, 04:59:35 PM
|
personally the problem is very simple btc can not be used for small payments .
so does the forum finally allow some alts to pay.
since it already does . i am sure theymos takes alts for forum payments so mods need to adjust and adapt
ie allow ltc .
edit:
I cant find the post that says forum takes alt coins so if it was removed
and forum does not take any coin I stand corrected
Just cause the forum accepts altcoins for services (AFAIK it's only GRIN for Copper Membership and paying the evil-fee; not aware of any other case where altcoins are accepted by the forum) doesn't mean altcoin giveaways are allowed. That's not how forum policy works. You could try to make that argument to theymos but we, as mods, can't just go up and say "well if you accept altcoins, everyone should be able to incentivize posting for altcoins". |
|
|
|
|
9
|
Other / Meta / Re: User banned - Possibly misunderstanding the idea of a regular social bounty
|
on: May 21, 2021, 02:46:55 PM
|
Very interesting topic and I wonder what saved this thread from being deleted? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5337562.0 (it's kind of a giveaway to me, users were asked to find a song/tune posted and whoever finds it, gets 20 dogecoins and a merit) It simply wasn't reported. It's now been trashed and the creator temp banned.
Banning OP and participants for this seems excessive to me.
As per how other altcoin-part-bitcoin giveaways in Games and Rounds have been handled by theymos in the past, only the OP gets banned. Participants do get banned if the thread was originally posted in the altcoin sections (due to the warnings plastered all over there's no good excuse as to why the participant "didn't know").
-quote snip- Honestly speaking, your understanding and interpretation of rules are going over my head (maybe my level of intellectuality is way lower than you). Maybe we can draw a line in disagreement because clearly we are looking this case from completely two different angles. Your focus in on the ALT coin part and my focus (and perhaps others too) is on the Bitcoin part. You are more into finding a little fault (not sure indeed it was there) and ban hammer a user by not caring about anything and without even looking at details and I (perhaps other too) are more into being open and give enough thought before taking any negative action. But eventually your one will stand because you are playing an official rule. Just make sure that you don't make this space hard for genuine crypto lovers, bitcoin enthusiasts. Bitcoin still has a long way to go, and we need to ensure that we are helping to make this community bigger. <...> Let's forget what others are thinking or interpreting the rule/situation let's just point what mprep and hilariousandco (both global moderator after all) considering unofficial rule number 23. 23. When deciding if a user has broken the rules, the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules.[e] Eventually this is where we stand -img snip- There's plenty of exceptions to be made in other rules where enforcing it to the letter would violate the spirit of the rule (and I've marked numerous reports as bad that have tried to use the letter of the rules to attack users they didn't like). However, from both what's written and from what I've observed (in how theymos has dealt with altcoin giveaways both in and outside the altcoin sections), there are no exceptions to this rule (for the organizers). If you incentivize posting in a thread for altcoins in a way that is more reminiscent of a giveaway rather than a bounty that requires substantial effort to complete, you will be banned and your thread - trashed. This isn't the first altcoin-part-bitcoin giveaway posted in Games and Rounds I've issued a ban for and AFAIK not a single creator of such a giveaway had their ban removed by theymos. Now, theymos is free to change his mind at any point and decide that cases like these don't deserve as harsh of a punishment as similar offenses but he has given me no reason or indication to think so. If he does change his mind and / or informs me that these exact situations are an exception to the rule, I'll gladly adjust my moderation. |
|
|
|
|
10
|
Other / Meta / Re: User banned - Possibly misunderstanding the idea of a regular social bounty
|
on: May 20, 2021, 04:37:21 PM
|
I wonder why wasn't it moved to the right board? Either Service or Bounty (altcoin). Wouldn't that be a better solution than banning and removing a topic from a new member who is genuinely interested to do something for Bitcoin? The payment had two forms: LTC and BTC. Why only considered LTC (negative) side but not BTC (positive) side?
It was moved to the appropriate board - the Trashcan. Had this giveaway been started in Bounties (Altcoins), the participants who applied for the LTC part of the giveaway would've been suspended as well (albeit for a much shorter period of time). What I was trying to highlight with the "wrong board" comment was that the onus of seeking out the (seemingly) appropriate board is on him and not doing so doesn't exempt him from the rules of a board where similar content (bounty campaigns that pay out altcoins) is located in. By not doing so, he violated 3 rules: 2. No off-topic posts.
<...>
14. All altcoin related discussion belong in the Alternate cryptocurrencies and its child boards.
15. No on-forum altcoin giveaways.
Had he selected the (seemingly) correct board to start his thread in, he probably would've read through the stickies and refrained from giving away altcoins.
Let me mark bold from the same quote which makes it right if you would move that to Bounty (altcoin) considering you have missed that he is paying $200 worth of BTC in BTC for a tweet. <...> While I can not recall if there were same case but in his case he is not paying only with altcoin. In fact, the main goal was to pay bitcoin but since the lower amounts will consider dust bitcoin, the plan was changed (Read here the post I made just after the main thread with concerns about dust payment and suggesting escrow). For 0.000005 to 0.0002 BTC changed plan was to pay using LTC and 0.0007 to 0.005 BTC will be paid using BTC, obviously. Besides, he even escrowed 0.025BTC to ensure that community knows they will get paid. I would love to see an example where user is paying in BTC and escrowed the BTC but got banned and their topics were removed from G&R boards since you are claiming this is same case as many others' giveaway. The amount he's paying is irrelevant - it's what he's paying for (one-off low effort tasks that involve posting in the thread in exchange for altcoins). That's already prohibited and would've had your Bounties (Altcoins) thread trashed with you and your bounty's participants being temp banned. Were we to make an exception for giveaways that payout "large" (which, again, is really subjective) amounts of BTC in addition to altcoins, you could pretend to give away huge quantities of BTC while also slotting in a promotion for whatever altcoin you see fit. You pay out the altcoins immediately and promise to pay out the BTC at the end of the campaign. You run the campaign for as long as you want and then disappear once you no longer need promotion for your selected altcoin. At which point you've not only dodged the spirit of the rule (technically, only breaking the rule once you disappear because you didn't actually give away BTC) but also scammed a bunch of people. Do note that I'm not implying this is the case, I'm merely highlighting a hypothetical situation. Now, you could argue that there should be an exception for established altcoins as there's very little incentive to run such giveaways (as opposed to a new token running an ICO / IEO / I-whatever-O), but in the eyes of the forum (or I guess theymos specifically) there isn't. When it comes to giveaways - there's BTC and then there's altcoins (no matter how big or small). A different issue pops up with making exceptions if the BTC is escrowed - who do you consider as trustworthy escrows in the eyes of the rules / moderation. At that point, albeit not directly, we have to start moderating escrow scams (which doesn't seem like something theymos would want, considering that scammer tags have been deprecated for a rather long time) with the potential side effect of carving out a forum-approved escrow cartel that can make your bitcoin-part-altcoin be able to exist on the forum (as opposed to it just being trashed and you temp-banned).
What if change the word "giveaway" and create the same but use the word "twitter bounty"? Would that consider fine? I guess yes coz that become just another twitter bounty we regularly see in service board and altcoin (bounty) board. Just one word that makes all the difference. Same rules would apply. As I've mentioned, I trashed numerous bounties paying altcoins in exchange for doing low effort tasks + posting in the thread (be it as a direct requirement or as proof of authentication). This restriction doesn't apply to all social media bounty tasks though and that's mentioned in the thread linked in the ban message: Accepting signups or requiring proof of participation for tasks requiring substantial effort (e.g. signature campaign signups, weekly social media campaign reports, media (videos, images, articles, etc.) bounty signups, etc.) via a thread posted in Bounties (Altcoins) is allowed though.
The thread in question appears to have been originally posted in games and rounds. IMO, it would be best to post a sticky in this sub clarifying that altcoin giveaways are not allowed anywhere in the forum. Over the years, various altcoin giveaways have been posted in the games and rounds sub, and it probably would not be unreasonable for forum members to be unaware of this rule.
Games and Rounds is under the direct jurisdiction of Cyrus and hilariousandco, which is why I'd rather avoid stickying anything there myself (IIRC I've only ever stickied threads in the altcoin sections; even the unnoficial rules thread was stickied by a different mod). So while I (as a global mod) technically could, I feel like that'd be pretty rude. It is a pretty good idea though - I'll have to get in contact with Cyrus and hilariousandco to see what they think. |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Other / Meta / Re: User banned - Possibly misunderstanding the idea of a regular social bounty
|
on: May 20, 2021, 01:40:33 PM
|
I issued the ban. Quote from the thread: - If you have less than 10,000 followers, then post an LTC address so that we can pay you in LTC. This is to avoid dust payment. Quote from the stickied thread I've linked in the ban message (additional emphasis added by me): Incentivizing posting within one or several threads via low effort tasks (e.g. signups or proof of participation for liking, following, subscribing, retweeting, tweeting a single tweet, joining a channel or group, etc.) is not allowed as it falls under the "no altcoin giveaways" rule ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2103687.0): You can't offer to pay people who post their addresses, usernames, etc.
Accepting signups or requiring proof of participation for tasks requiring substantial effort (e.g. signature campaign signups, weekly social media campaign reports, media (videos, images, articles, etc.) bounty signups, etc.) via a thread posted in Bounties (Altcoins) is allowed though. The user in question posting the thread in the wrong board is on them and the only thing this changes is that the participants didn't get bannned (as per how theymos handled a similar case in the past). The effect of this giveaway is the same as many others that had their threads trashed and their accounts temp banned: a low barrier of entry and an incentive to post for altcoins. The ban issued was of the same duration as similar offenses in the past. While I personally wouldn't be against lowering the duration to 14 days, I didn't feel like it was my call to decide on exceptions based on favoritism or subjective assessments of what's "cool". That's something you're going to have to petition theymos for. The thread was brought to my attention via a report. So if you notice any similar giveaways (in Bounties (Altcoins) or other boards), feel free to report them.
The last one I remember happened with a newbie who was genuinely asking question on mining board, but his post/s was/were deleted. Ultimately, by giving the excuse of keeping the forum clean, we are demoralizing genuine crypto lovers, or what message you think are being sent to them? From what I've heard, the mining boards have much stricter moderation compared to most other sections. If you think they're going overboard, I'd suggest either starting a Meta thread about it or PMing theymos and / or Cyrus. |
|
|
|
|
13
|
Other / Meta / Re: How to hide Elon Musk topics? Reqest for userscript
|
on: May 17, 2021, 03:05:18 PM
|
I'm not aware of any feature on Bitcointalk that allows you to filter out topics by title name. As for the userscript, enjoy (may contain bugs, use at your own risk, license: MIT license): // ==UserScript==
// @name Bitcointalk Board De-Musk-ifier
// @namespace mprep
// @version 0.2
// @description Attempts to filter out topics related to Elon Musk (or any other terms in the blacklist)
// @author mprep
// @match https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=*
// @grant none
// ==/UserScript==
(function() {
'use strict';
////////////////////////////////////////////// Blacklisted terms //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// (add or remove terms to update blacklist; save the userscript after doing so) //
// (must be lowercased, only letters, numbers and underscore) //
let blacklist = ["elon", "musk", "tesla"];
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
let allTopics = document.querySelectorAll("[id^='topic_'] [id^='msg_'] a");
for (let i = 0; i < allTopics.length; i++)
{
let topicTitleWords = allTopics[i].innerText.replace(/[^\w\s]/gi, '').toLowerCase().split(' ');
for (let u = 0; u < blacklist.length; u++)
{
if (topicTitleWords.includes(blacklist[u]))
{
allTopics[i].closest("tr").remove();
break;
}
}
}
})(); |
|
|
|
|
14
|
Other / Meta / Re:
|
on: May 17, 2021, 02:59:23 PM
|
Though in the past I hosted 5-6-7-8 I don’t know how many games... all in speculation  I've seen many free raffles in Collectibles too ( example). Moving those topics to Games and rounds feels like killing those very nice community giveaways, it doesn't justify the effort and money someone puts in without expecting anything in return. In my opinion, Games and rounds is a great board for commercial games, such as promoting a casino, but not for community "games". I don't moderate the Collectibles board that often so I'm not sure about the status of physical collectible giveaways / free raffles. I've messaged theymos about it and I'll post what he has to say (or edit it into this post) when I hear back from him (and if he gives me permission to do so). |
|
|
|
|
15
|
Other / Meta / Re:
|
on: May 16, 2021, 10:18:06 PM
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the set of rules is just a cheat sheet for mods, therefore, unquestioningly "adhering to the letter of the law" may not always be justified and objective. I just want to say that formally yes, El duderino_ allegedly violated several rules ... but given that the moments when the whole forum gathers in one place are extremely rare, the moderators probably should have shown more flexibility in making decisions.
Btw, speaking of "unfairness towards other threads", I would also say that drawing such an analogy is pointless, since I see a colossal difference between El duderino_'s thread and the threads of the "Game and Rounds" section. And the point is not at all about the declared remuneration, but about the strengthening of bitcoin culture and the value of opinions, (in fact, this is another reason why I believe that the place of thread X in the section of speculation). In any case, no matter what decision the moderator made, I feel that El duderino_ is justifiably outraged as I think he is one of the last people on this forum to pursue pragmatic goals.
You call it flexibility, but in a few months time someone else will call it favoritism, corruption and / or a lack of integrity on either my part or the entirety of Bitcointalk staff. While different interpretations and exceptions can be made for subjective rules (e.g. in determining what is a low value post with regard to context), I don't feel comfortable deciding on exceptions for a rather clear cut guideline from the big man himself: Yes, incentivizing posting is totally disallowed in the altcoin sections, and in the other sections it must be confined to Games and Rounds.
<...>
Altcoin giveaways involving incentivized posting are not allowed anywhere on the forum, but certain incentivized-posting games (not altcoin giveaways) are allowed in Games & Rounds.
<...>
Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections.
<...>
Similar threads are already restricted to Games and Rounds in the non-altcoin sections
<...>
As I've mentioned in my previous post, if theymos gives the go ahead to move the topic back to Speculation, El duderino_ will be free to do so. |
|
|
|
|
16
|
Other / Meta / Re: speculation freeroll game issue, moved topic, deleted posts..WHY?????
|
on: May 16, 2021, 05:06:27 PM
|
<...>
Why is there a mod always moving the topic to gambling, it isn't gambling for first its a freeroll where I give away a price as generosity to the community (though I like to attract the people I interact mostly with for first, the are the speculation board members, and those dont always look into gambling threads) Then again everyone can join !!!
<...>
From https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 (additional emphasis added by me): Games and rounds (child board of Gambling) - "Spreadsheet games, forum-based games, and discussion of individual rounds/games on other sites." All Bitcoin giveaways, raffles, contests also go here. Giveaways and games that give out bitcoins for posting in a thread belong in Games and Rounds. Giving away cryptocurrency for posting in a thread outside that board is prohibited AFAIK. You could try asking theymos for an exception via PM, considering that he's one of the participants in the raffle.
<...>
Second problem why is there a mod always deleting my posts in this thread, its annoying AF, its just some list updates to keep things easy and organised...
<...>
From https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0: 13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours per thread. Bumping multiple threads at the same time is allowed if it's not annoying.
You've posted several update posts within a single day (just hours apart). Constantly bumping a thread is unfair to other threads as it pushes them down. If you want to update the list of participants, you're free to edit them into the OP or into the last bump / "update" post. Some of your other deleted posts were posted consecutively and as such have been merged into the first post in a row. Hope that clears things up. |
|
|
|
|
17
|
Other / Meta / Re: The European Super League ( ESL) thread moved to off-topic why?
|
on: April 24, 2021, 07:11:47 PM
|
The Gambling discussion board is meant for topics that have a somewhat direct relationship with gambling (e.g. odds, predictions, speculation on outcomes or discussions about how certain events affect those outcomes, etc.) but which aren't about specific services. Just to double check, I've messaged theymos to make sure my understanding of the board's purpose wasn't off. Here's the brief conversation in full: Hey, just wanted to ask about what sort of threads belong in the Gambling discussion board as opposed to Off-topic. Do discussions about sports (ones that don't involve predicting or speculating about the outcomes of matches / tournaments or discussion of sports betting games / strategies) belong in the Gambling discussion boards? A few examples: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5331986.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5285284.0Also, asking in advance, would you be fine with me quoting your answer publicly? They're not talking about gambling much at all, so Gambling Discussion is not the correct board. If the main focus of the discussion was how the league thing affected or related to gambling, then it could stay. I moved both of those to Politics & Society because this particular issue and the way those topics are framed seems to have a large political/societal component, though Off-Topic would be almost equally appropriate, and in most other cases of "non-gambling sports discussion", Off-Topic would be most correct. Also, asking in advance, would you be fine with me quoting your answer publicly? Go ahead. Thanks. If you see any topics in Gambling discussion that don't have a clear relation to gambling, feel free to use the "Report to Moderator" link on the bottom right side of the offending post to notify the staff team.
Since I've linked 2 of the threads in my PM to theymos, he already moved those to Politics and Society (though according to him, Off-topic would be fine as well). The other 2 seem to actually relate to gambling (match fixing) so they belong in Gambling discussion. |
|
|
|
|
18
|
Other / Meta / Re: Abuse-handling in self-moderated topics
|
on: April 11, 2021, 02:07:05 PM
|
I request guidance on what to do if a user repeatedly reposts deleted content in self-moderated threads—especially if the user reacts to self-mod deletions at a speed which raises reasonable suspicions that the user deployed a spambot to defeat self-mod. I do not like to run to staff for help with this. The whole point of the self-moderation feature is that topic starters are supposed to handle these problems on their own: Anarchy, self-help, etc. However, the abuse-handling tools for self-mod are quite limited compared to the tools available to staff. Moreover, a self-mod topic starter cannot sit on top of a topic 24/7 to control abusive behaviour. N.b. that this is a persistent problem. The same user has repeatedly defied my self-mod rules before, and created a Reputation topic devoted to calling me “a cunt” because I banned her from my topics (!). I never complained in Meta before, because it was not a Meta issue; I just dealt with it. Whereas the user is obsessed with forcing her way into my self-mod topics; her escalating, seriously abusive behaviour motivates my question now. On the flipside, I am asking because I admit: I am a little bit evil. Well, more than a little bit. If this behaviour is fully consistent with the forum rules, and if I am assured it will not cause any reaction from staff, then I may be tempted to obtain my own spambot, and hammer the hell out of “ very self such moderated” threads habitually started by the user who did this. Yes, that user is a hypocrite who deserves a taste of her own medicine... Anarchy, self-help, etc. Of course, I would not engage in such grossly abusive behaviour if it is against the forum rules! The below quote illustrates the problem, but only partly. The user rapidly reposted identical content 21 times; she only stopped after I started publicly counting the deletions in another thread. If deletion had been done by staff, that would surely result in at least a temp-ban—regardless of whether the user disagreed with the deletion. The reasonableness of the deletion is irrelevant to the abusive behaviour. Observe the timestamps; they do not reflect my own relatively slow speed in manually responding to reposts. I could only catch a few of these fast, by sitting there and repeatedly reloading the page; who has time for that? Staff and administrators should have access to the corresponding deletion logs which show when each post was deleted. Please advise of whether I should report this type of abuse, and how—or should I handle this on my own, whatever that may involve? Thanks. -quote snip- AFAIK you should publicly (in such a way that both a moderator can verify and the user in-question is sure to notice) warn the user to stop posting in your self-moderated thread (e.g. making a dedicated post in your self-moderated thread as well as editing in said warning into the OP). If the user doesn't heed the warning, you should report his post(s) and the user will be (temp)banned. |
|
|
|
|
20
|
Other / Meta / Re: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ
|
on: March 29, 2021, 09:50:22 PM
|
Well, I was Wondering Why There is No Dedicated Page For Forum Rules. And Somehow I violated One Of The Rules And I got a Message With the link to this Topic. it's helpful. Thank you Very Much.
The tl;dr of why there's no official page for Bitcointalk's rules is that the head administrator doesn't believe in definitive rule lists. To quote an older post of mine: There's a reason why the stickied thread of mine still has the word "unofficial" in the title - it isn't officially recognized nor do I expect it to be in the foreseeable future. Just like it was back in the summer of 2014, the "Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ" thread is a personal project of mine, with the only sorta semi-official support being the fact that former global moderator SaltySpitoon stickied it (IIRC) and that some moderators have stickied translations or links to the thread in the boards they've been assigned to moderate (myself included). theymos has stated (on multiple occasions) that he does not believe in definitive rule lists: <...>
But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases. Whenever an argument starts looking like it was written by a lawyer, or relying overmuch on precedent, you've stopped thinking about the real case and have started using rules to retreat into moral and intellectual laziness, divorcing yourself from the decision you're about to make. If you're making a decision about a case, then you're responsible for that case, and you can't say, "I don't agree with it, but I was just enforcing the rules." Every case needs to be handled individually.
- I don't believe in creating definitive rule lists.
So don't expect him to officially link to a page with a list of rules, let alone when said page is a thread maintained by a single moderator. For reference, theymos is the head administrator of Bitcointalk. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
