I still like the idea of running a newly registered user through a number of steps before completing registration, and that's when we can ask a user how to setup their account, rather than forcing these sort of options on them. For example, in this case we could ask them whether or not they want to accept personal messages by default or not, and go into the reasons why it might be useful for them to disable.

This could be expanding with the welcome message that has been discussed, and a few other things like teaching them the basics about all the custom features we have implemented on the forum. However, I imagine that would take a bit of effort to get implemented correctly, but I'd much rather a tutorial if you will, which allows them to make the decisions themselves, without forcing them.

There's also the other option where its included in your profile where you can disable or enable things, but without a introduction to that, most users won't know of it, let alone use it.

Which is what I tried touching upon with my reply. If that was the case, I'd say you might have a case. Although, ultimately its down to theymos, and therefore theymos is the one that has the review the trust exclusions or trust ratings left on a user, and make their own decision.

Willing fully requesting to be removed from the trust system or opting to clear your trust list as a protest, I don't see as connected with how trustworthy a user is, and therefore shouldn't effect their merit distribution.

While that might be true, they've got fantastic players. They actually had world class players in almost every position. Pogba despite the criticism he gets, was exceptional at what he does, but it seems he could never get going in a United shirt, and was never given the role he needed, regardless who was manager.

They still have fantastic players, but obviously something has seriously gone wrong at the club level, as we've seen multiple managers come, and go now. Players actively being vocal against the club, doesn't help morale, and while I always thought Ronaldo was a bad idea to bring back, he isn't helping the situation at all right now.

You never know with Fury. I've been a fan forever, and I still don't know when he's being serious, and when he isn't. It annoys me to a certain extent, and while he's perfectly within his right, and will retire a legend. It just feels wrong to do so, when he could have two more fights against the these two men, and potentially cement his position as the best of his era, and no one would be able to argue it. Currently, we're always going to be like "what about AJ or Usyk". Even though, I'm quite confident he beats both of them, and almost certain he beats AJ, I still want to see it.

I just hope he's playing mind games, and comes back regardless who wins.

Mobile phones I would hope would never be used, although they're probably better than nothing, but again there's a potential privacy issue to be had with that. However, the rest is good. Physical key although free, is by your discretion. Other than that, using a Bitcoin address, and automated system for verifying signatures would be the most logical approach. Although, that would probably be difficult to implement into the current software, and that's why I imagine it hasn't already been implemented, I take theymos has someone who cares about security, so I wouldn't have thought they'd be against two factor authentication.

It's probably the issue of implementing it correctly, and without introducing a tonne of new problems, and potentially breaking other things.

I don't think Chimaev has much for Usman, Burns really tested him, and although Burns  did test Usman somewhat, Usman sat behind the jab, and won the fight convincingly in the end. I have noticed though, that Burns does have a weakness to a good jab, so that did play a major role in that fight.

Usman has the skills to keep it standing I would think, and he beats Chimaev standing. Chimaev doesn't look like the unbeatable fighter he once was, obviously still very good, took on number two, and went to war. Although, he very nearly got knocked out a few times, I've mentioned before he basically face planted the floor, and was lucky to stay in the fight at that point.

Because, for most countries it's a requirement to have a bank account. Either to receive your money from your job, or as proof of earnings. If you want to buy a house for example, you have to show proof of where your deposit came from, that means bank statements. You can do it with Bitcoin, but Bitcoin can't be used to purchase most houses, and a lot of mortgages class Bitcoin as a risky investment, and therefore you wouldn't be able to get the same amount that you could with fiat.

So, I do get it. Banks are something that we want to avoid using, but in a lot of countries it's a requirement, that people can't avoid. I guess it depends on your living circumstances, if you have already paid off your house or you don't mind just putting the bare minimum into fiat, then that's alright, but the reality is a lot of people that aren't over 40/50 aren't going to be in a position to do that.

Unless, you obtain the data from the exchanges themselves, you aren't going to know. So, to the vast majority of users here, most users are anonymous in terms of how much they are holding. However, if you're one of the companies which has access to this information from the exchanges, which by the way is a lot more than some of you think, you aren't going to know.

I mean, this is also a good thing. You don't want people knowing how much you have, especially if it's a rather large amount. I feel like people know how important privacy is, but at times we actually forget that privacy is also a right of everyone else, and we shouldn't be digging into things to find out who owns what. Hence, why I'm pretty much against any data being collected, and distributed to other companies. Google are one of the worst for this sort of information being circulated, and I can almost guarantee that they have data on you, including Bitcoin related data.

Hmm, not sure where you read that statistic, but I can remember the Mane red card against City, which is a stand out. Pretty sure that was Klopp managing us then, right? Pretty sure Robertson has been red carded also.

Also, to address the other point, I'm sure City are over the moon to see so many of the top four contenders struggling right now, but they've had relatively easy games, and there's a long way to go right now. Obviously, Liverpool haven't exactly had hard games, in terms of the opponent, we've just been a little unlucky if you look at some of the decisions.

I mean how Diaz can be man handled in the box, and no foul, and then a couple of minutes later get handled much less ferociously outside the box, and get a free kick is kind of ridiculous.

As for the pool, if it wasn't for Liverpool I feel like I'd be doing a lot better . As Ironic as that is.

There's generally a pattern to a users posts. Of course, this is a generalisation, and therefore this isn't concrete. However, users start off with slightly less quality posts when they sign up, and over time they'll learn the standards of the forum, and get sucked in to the community, and therefore want to actually contribute. Now, guides, campaigns, and all of this is all well, and good. However, there's a difference between a user that wants to learn, and those that don't. Take the altcoin section as an example; there's plenty of users there that don't care about learning, and no matter how much you push what's acceptable, and isn't acceptable on the forum, they aren't going to listen.

Even moderation doesn't cure it, they'll just register a new account. theymos has put evil points associated with IP addresses to try, and avoid this issue, but there's ways around it, and the spammers know it. Most of these types of users only care about money, they seem to join every bounty available, and in some instances have setup bots to reply to them. These users aren't teachable, no matter how good the campaign is.

Then there's the users which are new, maybe to the forum or the language, and we can't discriminate against them for using poor structuring of sentences, because eventually these types of users might actually become some of the most valuable to the community. I for one don't have perfect English, for anyone that's from the UK, you might be familiar with the term "Wenglish". Also, my grammar definitely isn't perfect.

So, my point is we can put all the information we want out there, and I do believe it's already out there to some degree, but the audience matters. Those that read, and take into consideration those threads, are probably going to become good quality users anyhow. Whereas, those that aren't interested, and therefore more likely to be a spamming kind, aren't. Therefore, much of the effort is lost on the types of users you're talking about.

Obviously, translations, and all of that is a little different. However, I don't think we should be expecting perfect native language either. Since, depending on where you're in that country, depends on how you structure, and use the language. North Welsh for example, is a lot different to Welsh in the South, and I mean different words for the same thing, kind of different, and not just the way they speak.

So, while I definitely do appreciate any proactive way of increasing the quality of the forum, don't expect miracles. A campaign is only going to help those that are interested in the first place. Moderation is still the best thing we have for dealing with spam, even if that isn't always efficient, due to the reasons mentioned above.

There's also the issue of signature campaigns, and local sections. A lot of the time it appears that the signature campaign manager doesn't understand the languages (almost certain with the amount they accept) that are being posted, but still accepting that for payment. So, we either need a better review process or multiple managers that are natives of that language for it to be accepting in a signature campaign, if that makes sense.

Also, worth noting; if you find a lot of spam in your local section, report it. If it doesn't get handled then that shows theymos that a moderator is needed in that section. Just because it doesn't get handled this time around, doesn't mean its meaningless, since it does indicate there's a need for either a dedicated moderator or an additional moderator depending on the workload.
 

I'll be honest, I was also struggling to see the correlation between the two. However, I guess there's one point to be made. If a user isn't trusted in the first place, do we trust them to distribute merit appropriately? I guess that's the only major question I can see from this. However, if you're trusted, and you've just asked the community to not include you in their trust lists, I'm not entirely sure why that would effect their judgement on being merit sources. If theymos has a problem, he will, and has removed merit sources.

I also voted no for the time being, unless I'm missing the point here. Feel free to enlighten me.

Not that I'm aware of, I might be wrong. However, it was basically the first one to do this sort of thing...right. Therefore, the name "preev" is somewhat like a brand name, similar to how IKEA doesn't really have anything to do with the stuff they sell, but practically everyone knows who they are, and what they do.

Since it was in the game early, and was reliable it has built up that reputation. I imagine the owner does know the worth of the domain, and if they don't have any interest in continuing the site, will probably look to sell at some point. It's easy to forget about a sites hosting if it isn't costing you much, and you aren't adding any additional functionality to the website. Obviously, not the best practice, but I know its done quite a lot, even massive companies have fallen into this trap.

The reason the odds are so far apart in my opinion would be that Usman could potentially beat Edwards both on the feet, and the ground. We know for absolute sure that Usman has the ground advantage, and wrestling is a whole different ball game to striking. I've seen poor strikers out striker a better striker, but I've never really seen a poor wrestler out wrestler a good wrestler. So, while I do agree the odds are a little far apart, I do think it'll be a win for Usman in some capacity.

I'd put a decision win on Usman for the maximum benefit, but I can see a finish in this fight for both fighters. Probably best to keep it off your accumulator if you're going for Usman to win.

The 60% off topic posts can go in off topic, and the 40% Bitcoin related threads can go in the most suitable Bitcoin section. We aren't going to make a new section to accommodate this. I think sometimes it gets forgotten, but signature campaigns exist on Bitcointalk, they aren't part of the rule set or influence our decisions on a moderation stand point.

Therefore, changes aren't likely to be made with signature campaigns in mind, unless it's directly addressing the issues that signature campaigns cause. For example, spam getting so bad that they're eventually banned. Obviously, theymos has stated they don't want to do that unless absolutely necessary.

Only post in serious discussion if it's (for a lack of a better word) serious . Nah, if it's of high quality, and you want to generally receive more serious, and higher quality replies.

Yeah, I run into errors like this quite frequently, and without really looking into it, I suspected it would be along these lines. Especially, when you're doing things quickly, it seems to happen a little more frequently, or taking actions which take a lot longer, like deleting a lot of replies at once.

I never contacted anyone about it, since I suspected that every staff user runs into the error, as I'm not doing anything particularly out of the ordinary. I don't think I've ever run into it outside of that though, except when maybe the old statistics were available to view, but they've been long disabled now.

Yeah, even if it's a short post it doesn't necessarily mean it's spam. A concise reply is actually appreciated a lot of the time. It's a skill that I struggle with, but being concise especially in technical discussions actually prevents confusion. 17 seconds is definitely plausible. There's also the instances where a user might've already written their replies for multiple threads, without being logged in, backed it up, and just copying that over when they are logged in. I've done that sometimes when I'm browsing on the phone, while not being logged in.

I wouldn't say it's normal to be hitting that time limit often (at least for posting), but I can see certain times where a user might run into it.

Despite it being a slow start for Liverpool, I think the majority of people are expecting them to turn it on at some point. We had multiple opportunities to score to be fair, and Crystal Palace took their chance. I think Palace had two opportunities that could've ended up with them scoring, and they scored the one.

We're also plagued with injuries right now. Matip, Jota, and Thiago to name a few. So, there's a reason why we're struggling, relying on a new signing to lead the line isn't usually the way Klopp does things, he eases them in gently. However, due to the injury situation we've almost been forced too.

I'm not too worried, and still confident going into that United game.

Yeah, Liverpool need to get their act to together if they want to compete this year. Nunez, even more so. Not at all happy with how he reacted, and while I was looking forward to watch him, that's really put a dampener on things. Now, we have to wait a minimum of 3 games, and that's if he doesn't get cited, more? There was an occasion before the red card incident where he tried to headbutt Anderson, so there's a case to be made there. I'm just not overly familiar with the process of citing players after they've been disciplined via a card in game. Absolutely, should be called up on that though.

I'd like to honestly see him get dropped longer than the ban, he needs to get that out of his system if he wants to have a long term career at Liverpool. Although, I don't want to be too massively critical, he's young, and people make mistakes especially in the heat of the moment. I haven't discounted him yet, but now he's going to have to make up for that, whereas before I was excited to see him play, I'm kind of glad he'll be away from the pitch for a while now.

As much as I'd love to see Khabib back in the cage, he made a promise to his mother, and he seems like the type of guy that'll keep that promise. Losing his father was unfortunate, especially since that's the major contributing factor to why he no longer fights, and I'm a little gutted as I never really got to see his earlier fights. I believe the first fight I saw was with him, and Conor (I think). Justin was after Conor, right?

I'm going with Charles on that fight though. I can't pass up that man, too many times I've doubted him, and he ends up delivering. So, I'll be putting a cheeky little bet on him to win.

What's new? I mean the promoters always talk like their fighters are the next champion or unbeatable in the case of Joshua. I get it, he wants to make money, that's what he's hired for. So, I can't give him to much stick for that, he's doing his job. However, it would be refreshing to hear a little honestly from time to time, but he isn't inclined to do that, AJ pays his bills, and therefore he's always going to talk about Joshua positively. That's until he's retired, and no longer on his pay roll.

I do want to see Fury come out of retirement to fight both of them though, I want him to win obviously, and I want him to be the unanimously accepted greatest of this generation, which I already believe he is.