|
1202
|
Other / Meta / Re: Idea: Excluding newbies from the bounty section
|
on: January 10, 2018, 11:44:31 AM
|
Seems a bit too heavy handed. As I mentioned, I'd rather the Bounties section simply not contribute to the post count. Doesn't punish the legit users who are there to apply to bounties but doesn't allow the spammers to pad their post count / activity.
Why? It is strict, but very easy to *implement* and enforce. I am even working on moving signature campaign applications, of the campaigns that I manage, off of the forum. Since quite a few campaigns use the forum to manage entries and weekly / monthly reports. And those that don't, quite often use it to verify whether a user who applied off-site is actually the BCT user he claimed to be. Sure, there's ways around it, but unless done automatically it's usually rather inconvenient to do so (e.g. accepting entries via PMs either via your main account (flood of PMs) or via a dedicated account (have to switch between accounts)). |
|
|
|
|
1204
|
Other / Meta / Re: Idea: Excluding newbies from the bounty section
|
on: January 10, 2018, 11:17:21 AM
|
I doubt it'll stop the spam since those newbies sooner or later are going to become Jr. Members (quite often by farming their accounts in other sections). TBH, this would just hurt legit users more than it would the spammers. One of the staff suggested excluding the Bounties (Altcoins) board from activity calculation / post count which I'm totally for. I'd like to expand the idea as follows: Ban/remove any bounty campaign that does not use Google Forms (or similar) for submissions. Using this is: a) More efficient. b) Doesn't spam Bitcointalk with useless enrollment posts. @mprep should take a look at this.
Seems a bit too heavy handed. As I mentioned, I'd rather the Bounties section simply not contribute to the post count. Doesn't punish the legit users who are there to apply to bounties but doesn't allow the spammers to pad their post count / activity. |
|
|
|
|
1205
|
Other / Meta / Re: Two new no-signature boards
|
on: January 10, 2018, 08:38:01 AM
|
A step, in sort of a decent direction.
It doesn't solve issues at all, so what direction are you talking about? All this board is supposed to do is create a small environment for legitimate people to *possibly be serious*. It does literally nothing to combat any problem that exists in any board. Since theymos doesn't want to untie signatures from activity (as suggested by hilariousandco), which IMO would solve the issue of both illiterate spammers polluting the forum as well as stop account farming, this seems to make at least a couple of sections where discussion won't get usurped by inane sig spammers. As I said, while not a step in the exact direction I would've wanted, it's better than nothing. Maybe if these experimental boards work as intended, we'll have some forum-wide changes for cracking down on spammers. |
|
|
|
|
1206
|
Other / Meta / Re: Two new no-signature boards
|
on: January 09, 2018, 09:49:31 PM
|
A step, in sort of a decent direction. A few issues with the current approach though: - Not excluding these boards from activity and post calculations is going to result in some people attempting to pad their post count (though considering the strictness, they might avoid it since it's easier to do so elsewhere)
- As a user already mentioned, avatars and personal text (and as such avatar and personal text campaigns) are still enabled (a minor issue but still)
- If the name "Ivory Tower" wasn't intended as a satirical jab at the current situation of the forum as well as the new boards' position within the aforementioned context, you might've misnamed it.
|
|
|
|
|
1218
|
Other / Meta / Re: Banned Account
|
on: January 08, 2018, 09:31:08 PM
|
You were banned for plagiarism: if someone told me that it's bad or something negative, i would say that if it's that bad, then i guess it wont be famous and the value of the bitcoin just drops down to 0. also, we cant really convince the person that doesn't like what we do if that's how he looks at bitcoins. we could just hope and give them some advice if they change their mind.
Also, we cant really convince the person that doesn't like what we do if that's how he looks at bitcoins. we could just hope and give them some advice if they change their mind.
Thank you. I understand, but by the time the ban lasts a long time or is it forever? It's permanent. P.S. This ban is for you, as a person, not just you as a user so using any other accounts of yours is prohibited. |
|
|
|
|
1219
|
Other / Meta / Re: Problem Accessing Old bitcointalk Account
|
on: January 08, 2018, 09:29:43 PM
|
I have a login for bitcointalk that I haven't used in about 3 or 4 years and I can't remember the password. The password reset process isn't working as it just states after entering the email 'This account has not yet been approved' and then loads a blank webpage with the text 'you are not allowed to access this area'. Is there an 'official' support/mod contact that can assist me with this? I would like access to some old PM's from 2013/2014, and also maybe to start using the forums again after a little crypto-world hiatus. Thanks
i have same problem. somebody can help?
Which accounts are you talking about? Can't really check what's up without knowing where to check. |
|
|
|
|
1220
|
Other / Meta / Re: Banned Account
|
on: January 08, 2018, 09:25:59 PM
|
You were banned for plagiarism: if someone told me that it's bad or something negative, i would say that if it's that bad, then i guess it wont be famous and the value of the bitcoin just drops down to 0. also, we cant really convince the person that doesn't like what we do if that's how he looks at bitcoins. we could just hope and give them some advice if they change their mind.
Also, we cant really convince the person that doesn't like what we do if that's how he looks at bitcoins. we could just hope and give them some advice if they change their mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
