-quote snip-
Yet pretty much every ICO bumping service is breaking all the ones that you have listed (fake conversations per definition break all 3 and they are paid in tokens or altcoins usually). What are you doing about them?
If someone reported a topic and / or its posts using the "Report to Moderator" link and the moderator reviewing the case (be it me or someone else) noticed a rule being broken, appropriate punishment is dished out. Whether that's a ban, deletion of posts and / or topic or something else depends on the specifics of each case. |
|
|
|
As someone who created and still maintains the unofficial list of rules, it might surprise you to hear that, well, I don't know. If you wanna err on the side of caution, bump one thread once every 24 hours (doesn't have to be super exact, just make sure that your previous bump post doesn't have the " Today at ..." timestamp). Doesn't have to be the same thread each time but pick only one for your daily bump. If you really wanna test the limits (this isn't a suggestion or endorsement of such behavior BTW), bump all of your threads every 24 hours. Do note that I can't guarantee you won't get banned for doing so. Searching around for what theymos has said about bumping turns up mixed results. His old posts (from nearly 8 years ago) hint at a slightly different version of the rule (both stricter and more lenient in different regards) than what I've noticed being enforced right now (emphasis added by me): <...>
Do not bump more than once a day or many times in a row, though.
<...>
No more than once daily. You shouldn't bump a post too many times in a row. Bumping shouldn't be annoying. Delete old "bump" posts so they don't clutter up the topic.
You can bump no more than once per day, and not more than three times in a row.
Mods also may take action if bumping becomes annoying in other cases.
<...>
He's not just bumping -- he's also adjusting the price, which is more meaningful than the typical "bump reply". So that guideline (no more than once per day and a few times in a row) doesn't apply.
Considering how much the forum has grown (as well as factoring in my experience on how it's been enforced for a while now), I really doubt this version is still in effect. That and the 2 newer posts I managed to dig up which seem to (at least vaguely) reference the rule listed in the unofficial list of rules (again, emphasis added by me): <...>
Posting twice in a row within 24 hours isn't allowed even in selfmod threads because it unfairly bumps the thread.
<...>
<...>
- Although bumps every 24 hours are allowed by the unofficial rules, should they be allowed?
<...>
Which all brings me to the conclusion that... I still don't know. If you want the definitive answer, I'd suggest PMing theymos about it. tl;dr Exact rules? I don't know. PM theymos about it |
|
|
|
I request that the rules list be reviewed and updated with appropriate guidance to users about the form of spam known as ICO bumping.
It is obviously spam by any reasonable (or even useful) definition of the word. I don’t think anybody can reasonably argue that users should not already expect to be banned for it, just as for any other form of spam. Nevertheless, on grounds that more user education is usually better than less, I suggest that it would be wise to give this issue an explicit treatment in the unofficial rules list that everybody is supposed to read.
Unfortunately, I myself do not know and could not readily find any relevant quotes from administrators or staff on this issue; I would appreciate if somebody could provide some.
<...>
That's already covered by the list of rules since it: 1) Limits thread bumps to once per 24 hours. 2) Prohibits users from incentivizing posting (or, consequently, participating in such incentivized posting) in one or more specific threads if the incentive is an altcoin. 3) Limits incentivized posting to Games and Rounds (where only Bitcoin giveaways are considered on-topic) Here are the corresponding rules: 2. No off-topic posts.
<...>
13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]
14. All altcoin related discussion belongs in the Alternate cryptocurrencies and it's child boards. [3][4][e]
15. No on-forum altcoin giveaways. [6][e]
<...>
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.
I might try to work the "you can only incentivize posting in a Games and Rounds topic" into the rules at some point, but I'm not sure whether I should do so and if I should, how to do so properly because each rule added bloats the thread to the point where it becomes useless for the average casual user (the audience this thread was aimed at in the first place). |
|
|
|
By default, BadBear's ad spam rule prohibited users from posting any material promoting their services in other people's threads. All the exception did was allow small and non-distracting pool, exchange and block explorer announcements. All other services are still banned from posting promotional messages to anyone else's ANN thread.
The rule is pretty specific about that.
Thank you very much! This info is very helpful! Could it be useful to quote your message in the post pinned in Ann section? No problem. Yeah, I'll probably revise the wording of my edit in the "no ad spam" sticky some time in the future. |
|
|
|
By default, BadBear's ad spam rule prohibited users from posting any material promoting their services in other people's threads. All the exception did was allow small and non-distracting pool, exchange and block explorer announcements. All other services are still banned from posting promotional messages to anyone else's ANN thread. The rule is pretty specific about that. The clause ...ARE NOT large, distracting with images, or markup codes (lots of bold and colors) and other traits of an advertisement. If a post is considered an advertisement will be determined on case by case basis. only applies to those posts that match the exceptions literally listed out above that clause: As per this shift, the following type of posts are now allowed in coin threads: - Posts about block explorers. ("Here is a new block explorer for this coin" type posts)
- If a service comes up in a disussion and directly related to the coin, it's allowed
- "We're up" messages for pools (if it's only once per thread)
- "This exchange added coin" type posts for exchanges (again, if it's only once per thread)
However, said rules only apply to those posts that ARE NOT large, distracting with images, or markup codes (lots of bold and colors) and other traits of an advertisement. If a post is considered an advertisement will be determined on case by case basis.
So the OFFICIAL RULE (PINNED ON THE ANN SECTION) is less "powerful" then "UNofficial thread" on the meta section? IMHO This is a gigantic paradox.
The rules aren't unofficial, the list is: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules There are rules and policies on Bitcointalk that aren't specified in stickied threads. The list is an unofficial attempt at codifying them in the most succinct and accurate manner possible. As to why there is no official list of rules, AFAIK the head admin, theymos, doesn't believe in definitive rule lists. If you want the reason why, ask him. |
|
|
|
mprep is definitely, without a doubt the most trustworthy manager available right now. If you'd like me to design a nice graphic for the rest of your thread, let me know and I can give it a shot
Thanks for the vote of confidence. As for the graphic, I'm fine with the simple setup I have right now though I'll keep that offer in mind in case I change my mind in the near future. |
|
|
|
Can i advertise a community coin ? is a no premine no ico project, i see that the bid has been withdrawn.
Bid 0.02
Sure. |
|
|
|
From https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5235207.0: I assume theymos is not aware of the bans for participants in the second giveaway thread. I've already messaged him about it - might take a bit of time before he gets back online.
<...> I thought the second part meant waiting for theymos' verdict, which is this: I decided to end these 7-day bans early. 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. The topic was incorrectly posted in Games & Rounds, possibly causing some understandable confusion among participants.
<...> I've waited for a few days and issued the bans earlier today, since the bans weren't reversed at that point in time and the few that created appeal threads seem to have decided to wait the ban out. Guess my timing was a bit off. |
|
|
|
|
I assume theymos is not aware of the bans for participants in the second giveaway thread. I've already messaged him about it - might take a bit of time before he gets back online.
|
|
|
|
See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5234398.msg54071041#msg54071041 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5234398.msg54070971#msg54070971. I've excluded all users who only participated in the giveaway while Bitcoin was being given away. You were not one of those users. Coin of the week giveaways
6.1. - 12.1.2020: Litecoin - 1 LTC
13.1. - 19.1.2020: TRON - 2,000 TRX
20.1. - 26.1.2020: Ethereum - 0.25 ETH
27.1. - 31.1.2020: Bitcoin - 0.0050 BTC
Well just saw it. My Bitcasino.io username is Locketto and I'm never lucky  You did participate in the Bitcoin giveaway as well, though that doesn't really matter much considering your other entry. The aforementioned entry during the Bitcoin week: My Bitcasino.io username is Locketto and this is the last chance  |
|
|
|
I posted it that thread too mprep I think everybody understands now, no need to take further action against anybody else in that thread. Unless theymos is willing to unban us then I guess the matter is closed. The other thread was giving away bitcoin too I think so wasn’t technically breaking any rules. Thanks. Should any bans be issued for participating in that giveaway, I'd exclude any users already banned for this one as well those who applied while Bitcoin was being given away. |
|
|
|
I usually ban users who participate in on-forum altcoin giveaways for 14 days. Considering that the thread was wrongfully posted in Games and Rounds (which doesn't change the fact that it's still against the rules), I can understand the ignorance of the rules related to the altcoin section but I cannot excuse it - hence a reduced ban duration for all participants. Unless there are circumstances I'm not aware of that would make this behavior not against (the spirit of) the rules, I do not intend to change my decision. You are completely free to appeal it to theymos though, who can then decide whether the ban should be lifted either due you not breaking the forum's rules (and my interpretation of them being wrong) or if he decides that due to your contributions / history / etc. a ban isn't needed (since I'm not the policy maker on Bitcointalk, I don't feel comfortable making that decision). <...>
Why not just delete the thread, a ban is too harsh imo. Can this be reversed?
There were loads of people posting in that thread. I hope I’m not the only one who got banned.
-img snip-
Everyone who participated got banned for 7 days. The creator of the giveaway was banned for 30 days. Banning both the giveaway organizer and any participants is standard practice, meant to harshly discourage participation in such topics. <...>
Since when are you getting banned when taking part in a giveaway? I didnt spam, pm or do anything else.
From my experience, without banning participants, the ban on on-forum altcoin giveaways is essentially ineffective since one can run such giveaways using disposable accounts. Spending countless hours in this forum, doing a lot for the community as well as trying to help whenever possible and then getting banned for 7 days for such a reason?
Rules apply to everyone. Whether your contributions excuse the offense is for theymos to decide. I try to avoid making subjective judgments in my moderation wherever possible and would rather delegate it to someone who has the final word on everything Bitcointalk, the head admin. The (now trashed) thread in question was reported by a user. I've trashed the linked thread as well. Will wait on issuing bans until this situation gets resolved. |
|
|
|
(I'm going to assume you're asking for the ability to create profile posts (alongside the ability for others to comment on them and / or "like" them) + being able to "follow" users + a sort of personal activity page that lists out what members you follow did recently (their regular posts, topics, profile posts, merit, etc.) to be implemented)The chance of theymos (the head admin of Bitcointalk) implementing these features into the current software package this forum runs on is effectively zero. There is, however, a new forum software project in development, with plans to replace Bitcointalk's current highly modified version of SMF 1.x with it once it's reached a stable version. Feel free to visit the "New forum software" board and suggest those features there. Even then, the functionality in question doesn't really mesh well with the old school forum vision of Bitcointalk. But hey, you're free to try. P.S. If you're asking for this forum to be turned into a Facebook-like social network, uhh... no. This is a discussion forum, not a traditional social network. If you're looking for that experience, there's Facebook itself as well as hundreds of both blockchain-focused and regular traditional social networks on the market. I'd suggest you check them out if that's the experience you're looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
Your threads were locked due to one of them being a campaign to incentivize posting in a specific thread and the other - the target thread of said campaign. Incentivizing posting in threads outside Games and Rounds is prohibited. As such, both threads will remain locked.
|
|
|
|
OP, please add the explicit forum rule about Personal Messages:
Subject: Re: Publicly posting PMs
-2 quotes snipped-
For the sake of user safety, I also recommend noting that unencrypted Personal Messages are not private, no matter what forum policy says about disclosure by the parties thereto:
-quote snip-
I have been intending to request this addition for awhile. Despite the explicit warning adjacent to the “Send message” button, too many users are labouring under the misapprehension that “PM” stands for “Private Message”.
For the record, this is my personal policy on the handling of my own PMs:
-quote snip-
IMO. I think that comports with the basic decency and common sense which should be expected of anybody who is worthwhile to correspond with.
P.S.—thanks, mprep, for maintaining this list of rules.
<...> Potentially relevant to how Personal Messages may be mentioned in the rules list:Based on the theymos statements that I quoted, I think of the administration’s policy as roughly analogous to a “one-party consent” rule for disclosure of PMs. I find it admirable that the forum’s administration has a reasonable policy to prevent overt fishing expeditions that may seek to coerce disclosure of PMs with consent of none of the involved parties... https://bitcointalk.org/privacy.php-quote snip- ...although that is a quite limited protection, when every PM passes in cleartext through Cloudflare each and every time it is previewed, sent, or viewed. What it really means in practice is that police ( obviously police, because nobody would ever try to steal an “official” identity) can’t grab your PMs simply by e-mailing or faxing an official-looking request. If the forum’s administration requires a warrant, I also infer that that means they will at least seek to quash civil subpoenas for PMs. Although that is always important for protecting metadata (which is in many ways even more revealing than “content”), it is less of a concern for people who use crypto—I mean, who really use crypto:-quote snip- -quote snip- PMs not being private isn't one of those cases where I feel that a lack of a rule requires documentation (especially considering the aforementioned warning). If a user couldn't infer the fact from the warning itself, I really doubt documenting it in this thread would help. As for legal side of information disclosure, I'd rather stay away from documenting how Bitcointalk might deal / deals with legal queries, demands and requests due to their opaque (from my perspective), speculation-based (as in "confirmed" through hearsay, loose interpretations of various laws or random throwaway-ish snippets from theymos) and usually hypothetical nature. While I can check whether certain moderation practices or rules exist, I can't say the same about anything related to the legal side of Bitcointalk. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
