Why was this deleted?

[ahpku]

Which unspoken rule did I break?

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Crypto 'Investors' Seek $100 Million in Class Action Lawsuit

An $100m class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of victims of an alleged Ponzi scheme involving the fake cryptocurrency 'Gemcoin' days after a US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) crackdown.
"Defendants heralded ... new cryptocurrency they invited that would be revolutionary and grow exponentially in value, and that Plaintiffs could become early investors."

while shit like this [posted in my thread] isn't?

...
Having fun creating 6 troll accounts in the last 30 min?

Go fuck a duck, tard!

[1715177054]

1715177054

[1715177054]

1715177054

[1715177054]

1715177054

[Vod]

Did you add any of your own text, or did you just post a quote?

A quote alone might be considered as not contributing anything to the conversation.

[ahpku]

Did you add any of your own text, or did you just post a quote?

A quote alone might be considered as not contributing anything to the conversation.

The mentioned post was deleted from my "Bearish News Thread," started as a sister thread to The Bullish News Thread.
Roughly 80% of the posts in The Bullish News Thread are simply .png screen captures of articles.
To my knowledge, none of those are ever deleted.
*Also unsure as to what, exactly, inviting me to "go fuck a duck" contributes to the conversation.

[Lauda]

Actually it was just a single report (I think), You have to read the rules first to understand.

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

You can't just open a thread about "news" and keep posting unlimited links. Obviously this is prone to abuse and thus a rule was made against it. My suggestion would be to start merging posts. Your whole thread needs to be cleaned as you've broken this rule several times. //I was not aware of the other thread either.
As for the other post, I had not noticed it (I was using my smartphone). Just report obvious trolling using the "Report to moderator " feature.

[ahpku]

Actually it was just a single report (I think), You have to read the rules first to understand.

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

You can't just open a thread about "news" and keep posting unlimited links. Obviously this is prone to abuse and thus a rule was made against it. My suggestion would be to start merging posts. Your whole thread needs to be cleaned as you've broken this rule several times.
As for the other post, I had not noticed it (I was using my smartphone). Just report obvious trolling using the "Report to moderator " feature.

I invite you to check out The Bullish News Thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.0), and suggest you apply to it the same rigor.
(or should I report the posts individually?)

Make it real simple for you:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=357170;sa=showPosts

*Waiting for your answer

[shorena]

Actually it was just a single report (I think), You have to read the rules first to understand.

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

You can't just open a thread about "news" and keep posting unlimited links. Obviously this is prone to abuse and thus a rule was made against it. My suggestion would be to start merging posts. Your whole thread needs to be cleaned as you've broken this rule several times.
As for the other post, I had not noticed it (I was using my smartphone). Just report obvious trolling using the "Report to moderator " feature.

I invite you to check out The Bullish News Thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.0), and suggest you apply to it the same rigor.
(or should I report the posts individually?)

Make it real simple for you:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=357170;sa=showPosts

*Waiting for your answer

lets stop the time, to make it harder I only use one hand, go:

37 seconds for one report. If you are a regular reader of said thread it should not be an issue to report those posts that bump the thread < 24 hours.

I understand that you feel singled out, but mods are bussy and you cant expect them to read the entire board. If you dont report posts, no one else might.

[Quickseller]

The "Bump" rule is actually a marketplace rule as it is posted in a thread in marketplace titled "marketplace rules and guidelines" so I would not think it would apply to threads in other, non-marketplace sections.

[Lauda]

I invite you to check out The Bullish News Thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.0), and suggest you apply to it the same rigor.

Make it real simple for you:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=357170;sa=showPosts
*Waiting for your answer

That does not fall under my 'jurisdiction' and thus I can not do anything about it. That thread will most likely get cleaned and yours will be too. Actually repeatedly breaking that rule tends to result in a (shorter) ban. This is the first time that I've seen that thread.

The "Bump" rule is actually a marketplace rule as it is posted in a thread in marketplace titled "marketplace rules and guidelines" so I would not think it would apply to threads in other, non-marketplace sections.

No. It might have been a marketplace only rule in the past, but this applies to all section without exception.
Update: No reference from someone else yet. However, keep in mind that there is also this:

the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules

[Quickseller]

The "Bump" rule is actually a marketplace rule as it is posted in a thread in marketplace titled "marketplace rules and guidelines" so I would not think it would apply to threads in other, non-marketplace sections.

No. It might have been a marketplace only rule in the past, but this applies to all section without exception.

Do you have a thread or a post that clarifies this rule somewhere? The only place I have ever seen this rule posted is in the above referenced thread. Even the unofficial list of official rules references that same thread (with a footnote of [2] )

[Vod]

Do you have a thread or a post that clarifies this rule somewhere?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1203661.msg12635773#msg12635773

Clarification from staff.

[ahpku]

Actually it was just a single report (I think), You have to read the rules first to understand.

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

You can't just open a thread about "news" and keep posting unlimited links. Obviously this is prone to abuse and thus a rule was made against it. My suggestion would be to start merging posts. Your whole thread needs to be cleaned as you've broken this rule several times. //I was not aware of the other thread either.
As for the other post, I had not noticed it (I was using my smartphone). Just report obvious trolling using the "Report to moderator " feature.

Certainly I would not wish to see my thread decimated, and the mere thought of a ban, no matter its duration, sends me into a funk. Could you, perchance, if you don't terribly mind, share your thoughts as to how I may resolve this conundrum, without finding myself on the wrong side of the [by]law?

Clearly, lumping multiple unrelated news articles into the same post is a forced, clumsy solution -- if for no reason other than failing to clue in the reader regarding new content.

Perhaps a more elegant approach would be to alter the posts, somehow?  With each one already being new, pertinent, unique, and containing a nontrivial, enlightening payload, what other qualities must each posses to reduce its ...'bumpishness'?
Or would it be more appropriate to simply start a new topic, as more 'bearish news' come to light?

[Lauda]

Clearly, lumping multiple unrelated news articles into the same post is a forced, clumsy solution -- if for no reason other than failing to clue in the reader regarding new content.

Perhaps a more elegant approach would be to alter the posts, somehow?  With each one already being new, pertinent, unique, and containing a nontrivial, enlightening payload, what other qualities must each posses to reduce its ...'bumpishness'?

No, it does not create a mess if you properly format it like I tend to do. Use this:

Code:

[hr][hr]

to separate with two lines. It really looks nice in my opinion. This is just my suggestion (not a solution); either: A) merge posts; B) Do not post so frequent that you have a lot of posts in a row. There's really no need to post so many "news articles" each day in a single thread.

Or would it be more appropriate to simply start a new topic, as more 'bearish news' come to light?

Actually I think that it might be even worse considering how many news articles you've posted so far.

[ahpku]

Clearly, lumping multiple unrelated news articles into the same post is a forced, clumsy solution -- if for no reason other than failing to clue in the reader regarding new content.

Perhaps a more elegant approach would be to alter the posts, somehow?  With each one already being new, pertinent, unique, and containing a nontrivial, enlightening payload, what other qualities must each posses to reduce its ...'bumpishness'?

No, it does not create a mess if you properly format it like I tend to do. Use this:

Code:

[hr][hr]

to separate with two lines. It really looks nice in my opinion. This is just my suggestion (not a solution); either: A) merge posts;

See boldface. How would a reader know when fresh content has been added?

B) Do not post so frequent that you have a lot of posts in a row. There's really no need to post so many "news articles" each day in a single thread.

Not sure I understand.  No need?  What, praytell, does that mean?  Are we discussing personal preferences, or forum rules?

Or would it be more appropriate to simply start a new topic, as more 'bearish news' come to light?

Actually I think that it might be even worse considering how many news articles you've posted so far.

To clarify: The posts aren't simply cut & paste quotes (or screen grabs, as is the case with the 'bullish news' sister thread). Rather, original content containing quotations and citing sources.
At the risk of sounding brash, have you read any of the posts in question?

[shorena]

-snip-
See boldface. How would a reader know when fresh content has been added?
-snip-

AFAIK an edit triggers a post to add up on the watchlist again, but it does not bump the thread up in the subboard view. Its reasonable to assume that regular readers either use a bookmark and can just check or the watchlist.

[Quickseller]

-snip-
See boldface. How would a reader know when fresh content has been added?
-snip-

AFAIK an edit triggers a post to add up on the watchlist again, but it does not bump the thread up in the subboard view. Its reasonable to assume that regular readers either use a bookmark and can just check or the watchlist.

An edit does not make a thread show up on your watchlist. If you are viewing a sub then an edited post that you previously read will now show up as unread so unless you are specifically looking for new content on that thread then a reader will not see it.

Edit: I tried testing this using a not-so-secret alt and my old account sales thread and I was not able to get my thread to show up as being unread after editing the OP as well as after editing *my* last reply to my thread.

[Lauda]

See boldface. How would a reader know when fresh content has been added?
-snip-
To clarify: The posts aren't simply cut & paste quotes (or screen grabs, as is the case with the 'bullish news' sister thread). Rather, original content containing quotations and citing sources.
At the risk of sounding brash, have you read any of the posts in question?

There are various formatting options (e.g. size, color, etc.) that would make it pretty obvious that a post contains new content. What's with the urge with frequent updates? People seem to forget 1 obvious thing: forum != news site. If you are so into posting articles, open up your website. That would be beneficial for you and 'your readers'. Otherwise 1 post a day that contains a few news articles should be enough.
This is not my personal preference. I'm rather trying to properly understand and interpret forum rules and guidelines. If it was up to me, it would have been cleaned long ago. I'm a bit strict(er) when it comes to certain things (i.e. I like things clean.   ).

Update: Minor fix.

[ahpku]

See boldface. How would a reader know when fresh content has been added?
-snip-
To clarify: The posts aren't simply cut & paste quotes (or screen grabs, as is the case with the 'bullish news' sister thread). Rather, original content containing quotations and citing sources.
At the risk of sounding brash, have you read any of the posts in question?

There are various formatting options (e.g. size, color, etc.) that would make it pretty obvious that a post contains new content.

Not on the reader's watchlist, no.

What's with the urge with frequent updates?

Why do news sites update during the day? My guess is "Because news happens in time."
It can't be posted before it happens (due to the temporal nature of our universe), and it stops being news if posted long after it happened.
These truths, as they say, we hold to be self-evident.

People seem to forget 1 obvious thing: forum != news site. If you are so into posting articles, open up your website. That would be beneficial for you and 'your readers'. Otherwise 1 post a day that contains a few news articles should be enough.

The forum is many thing to many people -- a news site, a bazaar, a place to steal, a place to earn pennies from signature campaigns, etc., etc.
If, OTOH, you could point me to a forum policy re. '1 post a day [being] enough,' please do.
But why such stinginess regarding the number of posts? Clearly the posts are not spam, clearly the thread has a reader base, the account is not a part of an ad campaign, so what gives?

This is not my personal preference. I'm rather trying to properly understand and interpret forum rules and guidelines. If it was up to me, we wouldn't be discussing this at all. I'm a bit strict(er) when it comes to certain things.

Go on!

[Lauda]

The forum is many thing to many people -- a news site, a bazaar, a place to steal, a place to earn pennies from signature campaigns, etc., etc.
If, OTOH, you could point me to a forum policy re. '1 post a day [being] enough,' please do.

Go on!

That's subjective and pretty unrelated. The forum is one thing, what the user thinks it is is quite a different thing. I was not talking about '1 post per day' rule. I was suggesting what you could do. As previously stated:

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

This includes your "news" thread, i.e. you're posting updates. I've explained it enough times (from my interpretation) and I will not explain it here anymore as we would be going in circles (maybe someone else will pitch in if you're lucky). Good luck with whatever you decide (just don't break the rules).

Go on!

No. My "job" is to make sure that people follow rules, not to make my own.

[ahpku]

In other words, there is no policy re. frequency of posts, as long as the posts are not spam. Correct?

re. your edit, I think I've shown that my posts are not "bumps."

[Lauda]

In other words, there is no policy re. frequency of posts, as long as the posts are not spam. Correct?

There is none. There are people making a lot of posts (20+) a day. However, what you are doing is 'bumping' the thread by posting 'updates'. Rule 13 applies to that.

[Quickseller]

In other words, there is no policy re. frequency of posts, as long as the posts are not spam. Correct?

There is none. There are people making a lot of posts (20+) a day. However, what you are doing is 'bumping' the thread by posting 'updates'. Rule 13 applies to that.

If you are going to argue that the marketplace rules (or at least no more then one update per 24 hours) rule is going to apply in all sections (which I don't think is an appropriate conclusion) then I might question why this rule is not being enforced across other threads in a similar manor.

The "Bullish News and Articles" thread was updated at 10:48 PM on Oct 7, 2015 here, and was later updated a second time at 11:29 PM the same day, roughly 45 minutes later here.

AFAICT, both threads are roughly the same with one discussing bullish stories and the other discussing bearish stories.

[Lauda]

If you are going to argue that the marketplace rules (or at least no more then one update per 24 hours) rule is going to apply in all sections (which I don't think is an appropriate conclusion) then I might question why this rule is not being enforced across other threads in a similar manor.

I'm still looking into that. I'm waiting for a official statement or someone who's been part of the staff for a long time.
Update:
'bump' != 'bumping'.

for other reasons?

No. Don't get me wrong. Nobody is touching your thread (at least I'm not) until someone confirms this.

[ahpku]

In other words, there is no policy re. frequency of posts, as long as the posts are not spam. Correct?

There is none. There are people making a lot of posts (20+) a day. However, what you are doing is 'bumping' the thread by posting 'updates'. Rule 13 applies to that.

Suggesting that my posts are no more than 'bumps' is a bit... disengenuous?
Especially in light of the 'bullish news' sister thread remaining unmolested, while having x10 the number of posts per day (see link above) & the posts being >80% a simple screencapture of a news article, with no additional content.

Now tell me honestly, did you delete the post because you thought it a bump, or ...for other reasons?

[ahpku]

Sorry for the delay.
Didn't notice your update, though was waiting for you to respond

... There are various formatting options (e.g. size, color, etc.) that would make it pretty obvious that a post contains new content.

Not on the reader's watchlist, no. ...

Perhaps you've chosen the wrong 'formatting options'? Maybe try something else next time, (e.g. size, color, etc.) that would make it pretty obvious that a post contains new content?[/color]

Update:
'bump' != 'bumping'.

for other reasons?

No. Don't get me wrong. Nobody is touching your thread (at least I'm not) until someone confirms this.

In other words, you've concluded that this post was a bump (or 'bumping,' whichever):

Crypto 'Investors' Seek $100 Million in Class Action Lawsuit

An $100m class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of victims of an alleged Ponzi scheme involving the fake cryptocurrency 'Gemcoin' days after a US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) crackdown.
"Defendants heralded ... new cryptocurrency they invited that would be revolutionary and grow exponentially in value, and that Plaintiffs could become early investors."

...and this one, being both directly below & the last post in the thread, escaped notice?

Having fun creating 6 troll accounts in the last 30 min?

Go fuck a duck, tard!

P.S. Experimenting with color per your advice.

[Lauda]

Sorry for the delay.
Didn't notice your update, though was waiting for you to respond

Yeah I do not like writing posts when it is not necessary, i.e. where I can update my previous post. This reduces unnecessary clutter. Apparently the rule fits, and we should examine on case by case basis (not sure if I'm allowed to quote anyone). This still means that some moderator can 'feel' like you're doing this for the wrong reasons (e.g. increasing post count swiftly) and you could get into trouble. It's best to avoid.

In other words, you've concluded that this post was a bump (or 'bumping,' whichever):
-snip.
...and this one, being both directly below & the last post in the thread, escaped notice?

A bump would be something like:"bump", "up", etc. However, when you're adding more information to the thread by making a new post (when nobody has posted since your last one), you're actually bumping it up via a 'update'. That was what I was trying to say. I was on my smartphone and have not noticed that one. If someone is obviously trolling just report the post and it will be dealt with swiftly.

P.S. Experimenting with color per your advice.

Good. A combination of more links per post and colors should still enable you to get your desired effect in addition to it following guidelines more closely.

[ahpku]

Sorry for the delay.
Didn't notice your update, though was waiting for you to respond

Yeah I do not like writing posts when it is not necessary, i.e. where I can update my previous post.

I don't understand. Why didn't you augment your previous post, separating your update with...and accenting it with text effects (e.g. size, color, etc.) that would make it pretty obvious that a post contains new content?
What made you choose to start a new post?
On a [somewhat] more serious note, not everyone here posts to up his post count. Some [though, grantedly, a precious few] actually have shit to say. The odds of such unmonetized posting are somewhat higher for certain types of users, e.g. those not taking part in signature spam campaigns, etc., etc.
I, I'm happy to say, am one such user.
While you, and I say this with no reproach, implicit or otherwise, are not.
Dear diary<3  Today I discovered the awesome power of text effects.
Update!!
Since I'm to wait 6 minute before being able to report each post, I'm going to just dump them here for now.
All of these are rule 34 32 13.

News URL : http://www.coinfox.info/news/3309-san-diego-chicago-and-arlington-get-new-bitcoin-atms

News URL : https://medium.com/@YacineGhalim/why-we-should-drop-the-whole-bitcoin-vs-blockchain-discussion-e3e38e9a5104

News URL : http://video.c[Suspicious link removed]m/gallery/?video=3000430314&play=1

(more incoming)

News URL : https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3146018

News URL : http://cointelegraph.com/news/115395/top-5-quotes-bitcoin-expert-quotes-on-banks-building-blockchains

News URL : http://www.ic3.gov/MEDIA/2015/151008.ASPX

News URL : https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/russia-s-largest-search-engine-yandex-interested-in-integrating-bitcoin-1444330362

(not done yet)

News URL : https://www.hackread.com/greendispenser-money-stealing-malware-hits-atm/

News URL : http://www.irinnews.org/report/102058/bitcoin-for-good-from-the-dark-web-to-the-light

News URL : http://bitcoinware.net/collections/frontpage/products/antrouter-r1-5-5-gh-s-btc-miner-wireless-networking

News URL : http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/bitcoin-21-balaji/

News URL : http://coinjournal.net/xapos-casares-theres-nothing-revolutionary-about-private-permissioned-blockchains/

News URL : https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nyop5/riots_corruption_and_junk_bonds_could_brazil/

(There!!)

Lol no, there's more, apparently

Dear Brother

You've to understand something, no one earth can give me orders !!

You are just a useless shit, my advice to you is to enjoy the show.

And again, you've 0% effect, loser.

News URL : http://www.livebitcoinnews.com/parlay-an-app-that-makes-placing-bets-easier/

News URL : http://www.livebitcoinnews.com/ingenico-partners-with-bitpay-to-offer-bitcoin-pos-solutions/

News URL : http://insidebitcoins.com/news/blockchaingroup-io-president-shone-anstey-on-new-bitcoin-blockchain-analytics-engine/35227

News URL : http://www.coinnewsasia.com/gemini-the-winklevii-exchange-and-the-asian-market/

[ahpku]

TL;DR: I post twice in a row, one post gets deleted because 'bumping'.
The crap above (18 posts posted within half an hour) OTH, gets to stay because reasons.

A newbie account must wait 6 minutes between posts or reports.  If i haven't miscounted, it would take me nearly two hours to report those posts.

[Athertle]

A newbie account must wait 6 minutes between posts or reports.  If i haven't miscounted, it would take me nearly two hours to report those posts.

No need to report them, really. You basically reported them just now by pointing them out in this thread.

[ahpku]

...
No need to report them, really. You basically reported them just now by pointing them out in this thread.

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.  Each and every one of those posts is still up, even the ones I've reported per advised method
You suppose I should try text effects?

[bitcoin revo]

...
No need to report them, really. You basically reported them just now by pointing them out in this thread.

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.  Each and every one of those posts is still up, even the ones I've reported per advised method
You suppose I should try text effects?

It's only been a hour or so; maybe you should wait a few more hours. There may not be a mod who moderates that forum who is actively patrolling at the moment.

[ahpku]

... It's only been a hour or so ...

Hope you don't think me a contrarian, but

... Just report obvious trolling using the "Report to moderator " feature.

I invite you to check out The Bullish News Thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.0), and suggest you apply to it the same rigor.
(or should I report the posts individually?)

Make it real simple for you:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=357170;sa=showPosts

[ahpku]

"You have reported 5 posts with 0% accuracy"
Can one of the anointed explain this shit?

[--Encrypted--]

at the moment I don't think there's anybody online that can see your reports (admins, GMs, or Blitz).

[Decoded]

"You have reported 5 posts with 0% accuracy"
Can one of the anointed explain this shit?

your 5 reported posts isnt really a spam/off topic etc that deserves to be deleted

[Quickseller]

"You have reported 5 posts with 0% accuracy"
Can one of the anointed explain this shit?

your 5 reported posts isnt really a spam/off topic etc that deserves to be deleted

The posts that he reported meet similar criteria of the post of the OP that was deleted....

[--Encrypted--]

IMO any kind of posts which is made just to spread FUD about bitcoin should be deleted on sight or at least moderated to some degree. but I might be biased.

[ahpku]

IMO any kind of posts which is made just to spread FUD about bitcoin should be deleted on sight or at least moderated to some degree. but I might be biased.

According to Lauda, who took it upon himself to delete my post, it ran afoul of 'rule 13,' to wit:

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

What constitutes a 'bump,' you ask (or, rather, 'should ask')? Well, answered right here:

... A bump would be something like:"bump", "up", etc. However, when you're adding more information to the thread by making a new post (when nobody has posted since your last one), you're actually bumping it up via a 'update'. ...

As you see, the 17 consecutive screengrab posts seem to qualify

As far as caring about how shittily you'd behave towards me, given but a modicum of power/authority?  I don't.
Merely interested in understanding the forum policy. Even that's proving to be more challenging than I've hoped.

[Hazir]

IMO any kind of posts which is made just to spread FUD about bitcoin should be deleted on sight or at least moderated to some degree. but I might be biased.

So you want to enforce almost nazi moderation on people? And be like: "If you don't like it - delete it?" That is not the way imo.
Some FUD stories are based on solid ground, some are not. Deleting everything slightly FUDish is not good option.
Of course, I am not against deletion of some posts\topics if someone is posting total nonsense.

[Lauda]

Okay let me say this one more time. I can not handle that user, and thus you should not be coming to me with those posts (it's being evaluated). Different moderators interpret rules differently. I've left your thread as it is for the moment. As said, if someone thinks that you're doing it for the wrong reasons then they might be deleted.
Tl;dr: Only 1 post was deleted so remain calm. Your thread is still intact and so is the other one. I'll let someone with more experience decide on these two.

[shorena]

-snip-

Im sure your childishness will result in what you crave.

"You have reported 5 posts with 0% accuracy"
Can one of the anointed explain this shit?

Id guess they are not handled yet.

[ahpku]

Okay let me say this one more time. I can not handle that user, and thus you should not be coming to me with those posts (it's being evaluated).

I did not 'come to [you],' you came to me.
I've reported the posts -- five through the 'report to moderator' feature, 18 in this thread. As of right now, nothing was done.

Must admit tho, I'm at a loss.  You've deleted my post, from my thread, allegedly for 'bumping' -- posting twice in a row. Clearly, doing so was within your scope.

And yet you claim to be powerless to deal with a user, on the same sub, who posts 17 screencaps in a row? Can you hint at just how a thing like that is possible?

Different moderators interpret rules differently. I've left your thread as it is for the moment. As said, if someone thinks that you're doing it for the wrong reasons then they might be deleted.

If still unclear, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Stop deleting shit just because you don't agree with it, and coming up with insultingly contrived rationalizations when called on it.

Im sure your childishness will result in what you crave.

Dunno. Seems to be working OK for now.
We'll see how it goes.

[mexxer-2]

And yet you claim to be powerless to deal with a user, on the same sub, who posts 17 screencaps in a row? Can you hint at just how a thing like that is possible?

She is powerless to do something as she is only a patroller and she can only delete/nuke a newbie member, and the person you have quoted is not a newbie.
And as she has repeated, she interpreted the rules as something(which she is given the right to do) and the Golbal moderator(responsible for spam post from ranks higher than newbie) could've interpreted it such that it didn't break any forum rules

[ahpku]

...she is only a patroller and she can only delete/nuke a newbie member, and the person you have quoted is not a newbie. ...

Ah, thanks, simple explanation, didn't know that.

And as she has repeated, she interpreted the rules as something(which she is given the right to do) and the Golbal moderator(responsible for spam post from ranks higher than newbie) could've interpreted it such that it didn't break any forum rules

If such posts do not break any forum rules (which appears to be the case, since the posts are still up), would you agree that a retraction and an appology from Lauda may have been instrumental in amicably resolving this issue?

[mexxer-2]

If such posts do not break any forum rules (which appears to be the case, since the posts are still up), would you agree that a retraction and an appology from Lauda may have been instrumental in amicably resolving this issue?

Quote from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

23. When deciding if a user has broken the rules, the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules.[e]


Legal note: this post is based on the forum policy, not mine.

So answer to your question is unfortunately no.
She interpreted it as you breaking a forum rule, global moderator didn't think so, and Lauda has replied that the matter is being looked into as well

Edit: Feels good to be faster than shorena

Edit: mexxer-2 beat me to it, see the quote above.

[shorena]

-snip-
If such posts do not break any forum rules (which appears to be the case, since the posts are still up), would you agree that a retraction and an appology from Lauda may have been instrumental in amicably resolving this issue?

I think what you fail to grasp is that there are no hard rules. If Lauda thinks (or thought, mods are people and may change their mind) the post in question is a violation of the given rule they can act accordingly. That does not imply that every other mod has to act in the same way. Other mods are free to interpret the rules the way Quickseller suggested upthread and mark the report as bad, because it does not apply to threads outside of the marketplace area.

Edit: mexxer-2 beat me to it, see the quote above.

[ahpku]

If such posts do not break any forum rules (which appears to be the case, since the posts are still up), would you agree that a retraction and an appology from Lauda may have been instrumental in amicably resolving this issue?

Quote from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

23. When deciding if a user has broken the rules, the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules.[e]
Legal note: this post is based on the forum policy, not mine.

So answer to your question is unfortunately no.

TL;DR: No retraction, even if Lauda made a mistake. Because Lauda couldn't have made a mistake as long as Lauda felt she was right--everything's open to interpretation, learn to special reletivity bro!'

You do realize the 'rule' you've quoted is a parody of what rules are.  It makes all the other forum rules totally irrelevant.  I men sure, they already are, being unofficial & unbinding, but that 'right to follow their interpretation' just sorta punctuates the charade with a dose of extra lel. In so many words, it tells users 'rules are whatever mods think they are, so appealing anything is a fool's errand.'

Sincerely,

--Lord of the Flies
P.S. Unjustifiably selective moderation? In MY bitcointalk?

[Enjorlas]

Define: Arbitrary
ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
synonyms:   capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable;

Define: Rule
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
synonyms:   regulation, ruling, directive, order, act, law, statute, edict, canon, mandate, command, dictate, decree, fiat, injunction, commandment, stipulation, requirement, guideline, direction; formalordinance




Arbitrary rules are not rules.

The beauty of rules is that they are not arbitrary.

[shorena]

Define: Arbitrary
ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
synonyms:   capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable;

Define: Rule
rule
ro͞ol/Submit
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
synonyms:   regulation, ruling, directive, order, act, law, statute, edict, canon, mandate, command, dictate, decree, fiat, injunction, commandment, stipulation, requirement, guideline, direction; formalordinance




Arbitrary rules are not rules.

The beauty of rules is that they are not arbitrary.

Yet its not arbitrary, since the choice is not random, but rather deliberate and based on a system of rules. Only the nuances are up to the moderator handling the report. Lauda may be a more strict mod, but that is not random.

[Quickseller]

Applying a rule in a section of which such rule does not apply is not being more strict then other moderators, it is incorrectly applying a rule.

An example of being more strict about the one bump per 24 hour rule would be a moderator deleting an update that was posted 23 hours after the previous update, while a more liberal moderator might allow that update to stay since it is close to the 24 hour threshold.

An example of incorrectly applying a rule would be to move a giveaway thread (giving away bitcoin) that is filed in games and rounds to the trashcan because giveaway threads do not belong in the gambling section (or because altcoin giveaways are not allowed).

I don't think it is any big deal if a moderator incorrect applies a rule on a limited basis, provided that there was not malicious intent (which I do not believe there was in this case). Believe it or not, but moderators are human and sometimes make mistakes

[shorena]

Applying a rule in a section of which such rule does not apply is not being more strict then other moderators, it is incorrectly applying a rule.
-snip-

Its your interpretation that the rule is only applicable to the marketplace section, Laudas is different. Yes, its in the "marketplace rules" thread, but the no begging rule is in the NEWBIE README. I dont think anyone thinks its only applicable in the newbie section or only aimed towards newbies. Following your logic however begging from Jr. Members outside the Beginners & Help section should be fine.

-snip-
I don't think it is any big deal if a moderator incorrect applies a rule on a limited basis, provided that there was not malicious intent (which I do not believe there was in this case). Believe it or not, but moderators are human and sometimes make mistakes

I agree, but I also dont see a clear case of incorrectly applying a rule, nor is it arbitrary. The rule might have been meant as marketplace specific, but I dont think its as as clear as you try to paint it.

[Quickseller]

The bump rule is in a thread entitled "Marketplace rules and guidelines" and the content of this thread is nothing more then a list of rules that reasonably would only apply to only marketplace threads.

The no begging rule is in a Beginners and Help thread that is entitled "NEWBIE README" however there is a header above the "no begging" rule entitled "forum rules" which implies such rules apply to the entire forum. Additionally, this post by theymos says that he "tends to agree" with the forum having a "no begging" policy, and here TheBear says that he will only bite the hands off threads that (among other things) are garbage like begging. Just because the "Unofficial list of official rules contains a weak or an incorrect reference supporting a rule does not mean that rule is invalid.

The "no begging" rule is also somewhat of a "common sense" rule, while all of the marketplace specific rules are not.

I would say most importantly, it appears that one moderator (who happens to be new and less experienced) is interpreting a rule in a different way then how other moderators are interpreting the same rule. A report should be handled the same way regardless of which moderator handles such reports (assuming they do not ignore the report), as it would not be fair to the person making such post if their post was deleted for no reason other then the fact that Cyrus handled a particular report while another person whose circumstances are identical does not have their post deleted for no reason other then the fact that grue handled the report.

I am not the person who argued that the post in the OP was deleted for arbitrary reasons, and I do not think that, I think that it was deleted because a moderator interpreted a rule incorrectly. With that being said, I do not believe that moderators should cite the rule that moderators can use their own interpretation of a rule when backing up a decision. After a (very quick) search for this rule, I was not able to find where a moderator actually stated that this is a rule, however I was able to find this quote by -ck:

No "official" set of rules was ever published, because if rules are set in stone, then people will come up with clever ways to bypass them, and then complain when a moderator takes action.

This is so true it's scary. I think it's important to point out that it's even more important to stick to the "spirit" of the rule rather than to the letter of the rule. There will always be a roundabout way to interpret rules that make it such that you're sticking strictly to the letter of the rule, even if you're clearly crossing the boundary. To that end, the rules should also stipulate that someone trying to get around the rules by sticking to them on a literal level while clearly infringing on what the rule was intended to prevent, is also not allowed.

So it seems that the ability of a moderator to interpret the rules is a way to automatically close any loopholes in the rules, and not a way to give moderators unlimited discretion in their moderation. I believe that moderators should cite rules, precedent and facts when backing up decisions, and not "rule 23"

[shorena]

The bump rule is in a thread entitled "Marketplace rules and guidelines" and the content of this thread is nothing more then a list of rules that reasonably would only apply to only marketplace threads.

I dont think my argument that it might be different than what you think is unreasonable.

-snip-
The "no begging" rule is also somewhat of a "common sense" rule, while all of the marketplace specific rules are not.

IMHO not allowing a bump every 30 minutes is also common sense. What do you think would happen if people in Beginners and Help started to bump (be that with "updates" or not) threads every few minutes?

I would say most importantly, it appears that one moderator (who happens to be new and less experienced) is interpreting a rule in a different way then how other moderators are interpreting the same rule. A report should be handled the same way regardless of which moderator handles such reports (assuming they do not ignore the report), as it would not be fair to the person making such post if their post was deleted for no reason other then the fact that Cyrus handled a particular report while another person whose circumstances are identical does not have their post deleted for no reason other then the fact that grue handled the report.

Yet there is a rule that allows mods to interpret a rule slightly different than other mods. Some threads I report get moved to the section I report them to, once in there they get moved to a different section because the mod handling the first section has a different opinion about it than the mod that moved the thread in said section in the first place. This is not uncommon and its normal that rules are understood slightly differently.

I am not the person who argued that the post in the OP was deleted for arbitrary reasons, and I do not think that, I think that it was deleted because a moderator interpreted a rule incorrectly. With that being said, I do not believe that moderators should cite the rule that moderators can use their own interpretation of a rule when backing up a decision. After a (very quick) search for this rule, I was not able to find where a moderator actually stated that this is a rule, however I was able to find this quote by -ck:

No "official" set of rules was ever published, because if rules are set in stone, then people will come up with clever ways to bypass them, and then complain when a moderator takes action.

This is so true it's scary. I think it's important to point out that it's even more important to stick to the "spirit" of the rule rather than to the letter of the rule. There will always be a roundabout way to interpret rules that make it such that you're sticking strictly to the letter of the rule, even if you're clearly crossing the boundary. To that end, the rules should also stipulate that someone trying to get around the rules by sticking to them on a literal level while clearly infringing on what the rule was intended to prevent, is also not allowed.

So it seems that the ability of a moderator to interpret the rules is a way to automatically close any loopholes in the rules, and not a way to give moderators unlimited discretion in their moderation. I believe that moderators should cite rules, precedent and facts when backing up decisions, and not "rule 23"

Yet the spirit of the rule applies in all sections not only in the marketplace section, hence my argument. AFAIK the above quotes are the reason the "nothing is set in stone" rule was added.

How is it incorrect to apply a given rule across the board when the problem said rule was meant to face occures across the board? Heavily bumping a thread - as the OP does, same as the other person btw - is a problem in every section. It is an incentive to make several posts in order to have your thread on the first page. It simulates activity (number of posts/pages/recent updates) in order to lure people into a thread pushing other threads down.

Now to make sure this is understood correctly. I dont think I know more about the rules here than you or anyone else. It is just that I agree with Lauda's way to handle this and share my views on things. I would be perfectly fine to limit the rule to the marketplace section, but I assure you it would lead to the above problems and I dont think it is in the spirit of the board to encourage this behaviour.

PS: thanks for researching the quotes btw

[Quickseller]

The bump rule is in a thread entitled "Marketplace rules and guidelines" and the content of this thread is nothing more then a list of rules that reasonably would only apply to only marketplace threads.

I dont think my argument that it might be different than what you think is unreasonable.

I am not sure I am understanding what you are saying here. This might be a translation issue.

-snip-
The "no begging" rule is also somewhat of a "common sense" rule, while all of the marketplace specific rules are not.

IMHO not allowing a bump every 30 minutes is also common sense. What do you think would happen if people in Beginners and Help started to bump (be that with "updates" or not) threads every few minutes?

If a newbie is making a "bump" post every 30 minutes then they would be making a useless/low value post repetitively which is not allowed. On the other hand, if a newbie were to post an update with relevant, new information then such update would be useful to someone who is helping them with such problems, even if updates are given every 30 minutes.....for example, I could read a thread asking for help with a newbie saying they are receiving a specific error message, I leave such thread open in a new tab, then spend some time conducting business, then 45 minutes later can start research on the above error message....then I can check my watch list to see if there are any updates to that thread (I am not going to refresh that thread and review an entire 10 page thread prior to starting my research), and if the newbie has an update saying that they were able to clear the original error message, but are not receiving a 2nd error message, then I would probably want to attempt to research how to resolve the 2nd error message, and no longer care about the 1st one. If a 30 minute update is provided then I will know which error message to research, and if a 30 minute update is not used then I will spend time researching an incorrect error message, and would most likely give up on trying to help the newbie because I had just wasted time in finding an answer for them that they already had.

I would say most importantly, it appears that one moderator (who happens to be new and less experienced) is interpreting a rule in a different way then how other moderators are interpreting the same rule. A report should be handled the same way regardless of which moderator handles such reports (assuming they do not ignore the report), as it would not be fair to the person making such post if their post was deleted for no reason other then the fact that Cyrus handled a particular report while another person whose circumstances are identical does not have their post deleted for no reason other then the fact that grue handled the report.

Yet there is a rule that allows mods to interpret a rule slightly different than other mods. Some threads I report get moved to the section I report them to, once in there they get moved to a different section because the mod handling the first section has a different opinion about it than the mod that moved the thread in said section in the first place. This is not uncommon and its normal that rules are understood slightly differently.

I don't think this is a slightly different interpretation of the same rule, I think the difference is substantial and clear. I don't think the difference in interpretation is because of a small nuance, I think it is a broad based difference in how a particular rule is interpreted.

I think it is pretty rare for a thread to get moved more then one time, and in the instances when this does happen, I report the thread an additional time and it gets moved appropriately, which leads me to believe that it was probably the OP of the thread to moved it back and not a moderator. 

I am not the person who argued that the post in the OP was deleted for arbitrary reasons, and I do not think that, I think that it was deleted because a moderator interpreted a rule incorrectly. With that being said, I do not believe that moderators should cite the rule that moderators can use their own interpretation of a rule when backing up a decision. After a (very quick) search for this rule, I was not able to find where a moderator actually stated that this is a rule, however I was able to find this quote by -ck:

No "official" set of rules was ever published, because if rules are set in stone, then people will come up with clever ways to bypass them, and then complain when a moderator takes action.

This is so true it's scary. I think it's important to point out that it's even more important to stick to the "spirit" of the rule rather than to the letter of the rule. There will always be a roundabout way to interpret rules that make it such that you're sticking strictly to the letter of the rule, even if you're clearly crossing the boundary. To that end, the rules should also stipulate that someone trying to get around the rules by sticking to them on a literal level while clearly infringing on what the rule was intended to prevent, is also not allowed.

So it seems that the ability of a moderator to interpret the rules is a way to automatically close any loopholes in the rules, and not a way to give moderators unlimited discretion in their moderation. I believe that moderators should cite rules, precedent and facts when backing up decisions, and not "rule 23"

Yet the spirit of the rule applies in all sections not only in the marketplace section, hence my argument. AFAIK the above quotes are the reason the "nothing is set in stone" rule was added.

My argument is that it is only a marketplace rule and that the rule does not apply in places outside of marketplace.

I don't think the spirit of the rule applies to other sections (see below). I think something that would be against the spirit of the bumping rule would be to have your alts ask questions in your own sales thread, or make otherwise useless posts in your sales threads, as these posts would effectively be a bump, however would technically not be classified as being an update nor a bump.

I would say that a "bump" post outside of the marketplace (that is not an update, as in it does not contain any additional information) should probably be deleted as it would be a "low value" post. I would also say that it is pretty rare that a thread gets addressed/replied to by a moderator after being "bumped" (as in "bump" and not a post that includes additional information) in meta.

How is it incorrect to apply a given rule across the board when the problem said rule was meant to face occures across the board? Heavily bumping a thread - as the OP does, same as the other person btw - is a problem in every section. It is an incentive to make several posts in order to have your thread on the first page. It simulates activity (number of posts/pages/recent updates) in order to lure people into a thread pushing other threads down.

In marketplace threads, you can adjust the price of what you are trading by fractions of a penny, or artificially adjusting the available inventory (or amounts you are willing to buy) and you could call it an "update" which would allow you to bump your thread to the top of a section, giving you a financial advance over others. In a non-marketplace thread, you are not able to manipulate an update anywhere near as easily, and there is not the financial advantage.   

PS: thanks for researching the quotes btw

I think you are making an incorrect use of that smiley. I usually use that smiley when I am laughing at someone.

[Lauda]

Must admit tho, I'm at a loss.  You've deleted my post, from my thread, allegedly for 'bumping' -- posting twice in a row. Clearly, doing so was within your scope.
And yet you claim to be powerless to deal with a user, on the same sub, who posts 17 screencaps in a row? Can you hint at just how a thing like that is possible?

I'm a patroller. This means that I can not moderate users that have a rank higher than newbie (except in my local section). This is why I said that it is not within my 'jurisdiction'.

I think what you fail to grasp is that there are no hard rules. If Lauda thinks (or thought, mods are people and may change their mind) the post in question is a violation of the given rule they can act accordingly. That does not imply that every other mod has to act in the same way.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Different mods handle a lot of stuff differently around here (users are usually not aware of this).
@Quickseller: theymos clarified on IRC that it is not just the marketplace. As previously said I will not quote unless given permission to.

She is powerless to do something as she is only a patroller and she can only delete/nuke a newbie member, and the person you have quoted is not a newbie.

Who is a "she"? I'm a 'he'.  

[shorena]

The bump rule is in a thread entitled "Marketplace rules and guidelines" and the content of this thread is nothing more then a list of rules that reasonably would only apply to only marketplace threads.

I dont think my argument that it might be different than what you think is unreasonable.

I am not sure I am understanding what you are saying here. This might be a translation issue.

Possible. I understood your point as: the rules there can only be reasonbly assumed to apply in the marketplace section, hence my argument that they can also be applied elsewhere should be considered unreasonable.

-snip-
The "no begging" rule is also somewhat of a "common sense" rule, while all of the marketplace specific rules are not.

IMHO not allowing a bump every 30 minutes is also common sense. What do you think would happen if people in Beginners and Help started to bump (be that with "updates" or not) threads every few minutes?

If a newbie is making a "bump" post every 30 minutes then they would be making a useless/low value post repetitively which is not allowed. On the other hand, if a newbie were to post an update with relevant, new information then such update would be useful to someone who is helping them with such problems, even if updates are given every 30 minutes.....for example, I could read a thread asking for help with a newbie saying they are receiving a specific error message, I leave such thread open in a new tab, then spend some time conducting business, then 45 minutes later can start research on the above error message....then I can check my watch list to see if there are any updates to that thread (I am not going to refresh that thread and review an entire 10 page thread prior to starting my research), and if the newbie has an update saying that they were able to clear the original error message, but are not receiving a 2nd error message, then I would probably want to attempt to research how to resolve the 2nd error message, and no longer care about the 1st one. If a 30 minute update is provided then I will know which error message to research, and if a 30 minute update is not used then I will spend time researching an incorrect error message, and would most likely give up on trying to help the newbie because I had just wasted time in finding an answer for them that they already had.

To make it clear:

Code:

OP: need help with x and y
1st reply: Try a
2nd reply (OP): x is fixed, but I still need help with y

Is perfectly fine IMHO.


On the other hand:

Code:

OP: need help with x and y
1st reply (OP): x is fixed, I still need help with y

should have been an edit, even though it provides new information, evne though the post is constructive to the thread and there is no financial incentive (besides maybe OP is selling their signature, but lets just ignore that for the sake of keeping the argument as simple as possible).

-snip-
I don't think this is a slightly different interpretation of the same rule, I think the difference is substantial and clear. I don't think the difference in interpretation is because of a small nuance, I think it is a broad based difference in how a particular rule is interpreted.

I disagree esp. if we consider the spirit of the rule.

-snip-
My argument is that it is only a marketplace rule and that the rule does not apply in places outside of marketplace.

I know, I disagree for the given reasons. The problem it was meant to face in my opinion is also present in other sections. I would even say that excessive bumping is not actually a rule that is needed, but would fall under spam, even if the bump is actually an update and contains new information. I can also understand the OP feels it more visually appealing to post each article in a new post, but thats a different problem.

I don't think the spirit of the rule applies to other sections (see below). I think something that would be against the spirit of the bumping rule would be to have your alts ask questions in your own sales thread, or make otherwise useless posts in your sales threads, as these posts would effectively be a bump, however would technically not be classified as being an update nor a bump.

I would say that a "bump" post outside of the marketplace (that is not an update, as in it does not contain any additional information) should probably be deleted as it would be a "low value" post. I would also say that it is pretty rare that a thread gets addressed/replied to by a moderator after being "bumped" (as in "bump" and not a post that includes additional information) in meta.

How is it incorrect to apply a given rule across the board when the problem said rule was meant to face occures across the board? Heavily bumping a thread - as the OP does, same as the other person btw - is a problem in every section. It is an incentive to make several posts in order to have your thread on the first page. It simulates activity (number of posts/pages/recent updates) in order to lure people into a thread pushing other threads down.

In marketplace threads, you can adjust the price of what you are trading by fractions of a penny, or artificially adjusting the available inventory (or amounts you are willing to buy) and you could call it an "update" which would allow you to bump your thread to the top of a section, giving you a financial advance over others. In a non-marketplace thread, you are not able to manipulate an update anywhere near as easily, and there is not the financial advantage.   
-snip-

Yes, its especially important that marketplace threads are not overly bumped, but that does not reduce the importance in other sections.

PS: thanks for researching the quotes btw

I think you are making an incorrect use of that smiley. I usually use that smiley when I am laughing at someone.

I would not laugh at you. I just smiled more instead of less Might be because I never read the alt text for it and just went with the visual impression of the ASCII version. Just assume it posted this instead ->

[ahpku]

...
On the other hand:

Code:

OP: need help with x and y
1st reply (OP): x is fixed, I still need help with y

should have been an edit, even though it provides new information, evne though the post is constructive to the thread and there is no financial incentive (besides maybe OP is selling their signature, but lets just ignore that for the sake of keeping the argument as simple as possible). ...

Why belabor this? You're clearly in the wrong.
The posts below, all made by one user, most within ~2 to 4 minutes of each other, were reported to teh mods.
My reports were addressed, and found to be in error; the posts remain unmolested; it's clearly OK to post 17 posts in a row.
QED

...
Update!!
Since I'm to wait 6 minute before being able to report each post, I'm going to just dump them here for now.
All of these are rule 34 32 13.

News URL : http://www.coinfox.info/news/3309-san-diego-chicago-and-arlington-get-new-bitcoin-atms

News URL : https://medium.com/@YacineGhalim/why-we-should-drop-the-whole-bitcoin-vs-blockchain-discussion-e3e38e9a5104

News URL : http://video.c[Suspicious link removed]m/gallery/?video=3000430314&play=1

(more incoming)

News URL : https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3146018

News URL : http://cointelegraph.com/news/115395/top-5-quotes-bitcoin-expert-quotes-on-banks-building-blockchains

News URL : http://www.ic3.gov/MEDIA/2015/151008.ASPX

News URL : https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/russia-s-largest-search-engine-yandex-interested-in-integrating-bitcoin-1444330362

(not done yet)

News URL : https://www.hackread.com/greendispenser-money-stealing-malware-hits-atm/

News URL : http://www.irinnews.org/report/102058/bitcoin-for-good-from-the-dark-web-to-the-light

News URL : http://bitcoinware.net/collections/frontpage/products/antrouter-r1-5-5-gh-s-btc-miner-wireless-networking

News URL : http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/bitcoin-21-balaji/

News URL : http://coinjournal.net/xapos-casares-theres-nothing-revolutionary-about-private-permissioned-blockchains/

News URL : https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nyop5/riots_corruption_and_junk_bonds_could_brazil/

(There!!)

Lol no, there's more, apparently

Dear Brother

You've to understand something, no one earth can give me orders !!

You are just a useless shit, my advice to you is to enjoy the show.

And again, you've 0% effect, loser.

News URL : http://www.livebitcoinnews.com/parlay-an-app-that-makes-placing-bets-easier/

News URL : http://www.livebitcoinnews.com/ingenico-partners-with-bitpay-to-offer-bitcoin-pos-solutions/

News URL : http://insidebitcoins.com/news/blockchaingroup-io-president-shone-anstey-on-new-bitcoin-blockchain-analytics-engine/35227

News URL : http://www.coinnewsasia.com/gemini-the-winklevii-exchange-and-the-asian-market/

Edit: text effects. How'm I doin'?

[shorena]

-snip-
Why belabor this? [ color=red][ size=12pt]You're [/size][/color]clearly in the [ color=red][ size=12pt]wrong.[/size][/color]

I dont think so.

-snip-
@Quickseller: theymos clarified on IRC that it is not just the marketplace. As previously said I will not quote unless given permission to.
-snip-

The posts below, all made by one user, most within ~2 to 4 minutes of each other, were reported to teh mods.

I know, I reported some of them myself. They appear to be unhandled or have been ignored. I would prefer that they are removed or merged as well. Its just a big row of pictures, I dont see any issue with them beeing a single post.

My reports were addressed, and found to be in error; the posts remain unmolested; [ color=red]it's clearly OK to post 17 posts in a row.[/color]
[ size=12pt]QED[/size]

...
Update!!
Since I'm to wait 6 minute before being able to report each post, I'm going to just dump them here for now.
All of these are rule 34 32 13.

News URL : http://www.coinfox.info/news/3309-san-diego-chicago-and-arlington-get-new-bitcoin-atms

News URL : https://medium.com/@YacineGhalim/why-we-should-drop-the-whole-bitcoin-vs-blockchain-discussion-e3e38e9a5104

News URL : http://video.c[Suspicious link removed]m/gallery/?video=3000430314&play=1

(more incoming)

News URL : https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3146018

News URL : http://cointelegraph.com/news/115395/top-5-quotes-bitcoin-expert-quotes-on-banks-building-blockchains

News URL : http://www.ic3.gov/MEDIA/2015/151008.ASPX

News URL : https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/russia-s-largest-search-engine-yandex-interested-in-integrating-bitcoin-1444330362

(not done yet)

News URL : https://www.hackread.com/greendispenser-money-stealing-malware-hits-atm/

News URL : http://www.irinnews.org/report/102058/bitcoin-for-good-from-the-dark-web-to-the-light

News URL : http://bitcoinware.net/collections/frontpage/products/antrouter-r1-5-5-gh-s-btc-miner-wireless-networking

News URL : http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/08/bitcoin-21-balaji/

News URL : http://coinjournal.net/xapos-casares-theres-nothing-revolutionary-about-private-permissioned-blockchains/

News URL : https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nyop5/riots_corruption_and_junk_bonds_could_brazil/

(There!!)

Lol no, there's more, apparently

Dear Brother

You've to understand something, no one earth can give me orders !!

You are just a useless shit, my advice to you is to enjoy the show.

And again, you've 0% effect, loser.

News URL : http://www.livebitcoinnews.com/parlay-an-app-that-makes-placing-bets-easier/

News URL : http://www.livebitcoinnews.com/ingenico-partners-with-bitpay-to-offer-bitcoin-pos-solutions/

News URL : http://insidebitcoins.com/news/blockchaingroup-io-president-shone-anstey-on-new-bitcoin-blockchain-analytics-engine/35227

News URL : http://www.coinnewsasia.com/gemini-the-winklevii-exchange-and-the-asian-market/

Edit: text effects. How'm I doin'?

Impressive, plonk.

[ahpku]

^^
>I reported some of them myself. They appear to be unhandled or have been ignored.

I have reported those posts. I have also reported them in this sub.
You have reported those posts.
I have reported the user, who, uncontent with shitting up his own [self-moderated] thread, also shits in mine.
It's been nearly two days, and nothing was done.
If consecutive posting is against forum policy, and the reason for my post being deleted, how would you explain this?

Tangent: In light of this, do you honestly blame me for [mistakenly] assuming selective enforcement after having [one of the TWO consecutive] posts deleted?

[Lauda]

Tangent: In light of this, do you honestly blame me for [mistakenly] assuming selective enforcement after having [one of the TWO consecutive] posts deleted?

There is no selective enforcement of rules. I'm waiting for admins to completely clarify this before I handle. Nobody (that I've talked to) is 100% sure at the moment. This is why I said that your thread will remain untouched (for now). Just be patient please.
It is difficult to talk to them as they're very busy most of the time.

[ahpku]

I find it difficult to understand how a forum with millions in its coffers is having such staffing difficulties
Internet fora are essentially temporal. A post's relevance dwindles in time, making irrelevant any moderation happening days after the fact. Yesterday's posts, like yesterday's papers, are seldom read.
TL;DR: Don't worry about it, no one will care about or notice posts on the back pages of a thread.

[BadBear]

Posting brings your thread back to the top. If nobody else is posting in the thread, this may show the topic is either uninteresting or doesn't merit much discussion. Bumping the thread isn't just bumping the thread, it's also removing another topic from the front page, which may be more interesting or worthy of discussion.

This means that bumping a thread isn't just a marketplace guideline (relevant, note it's located in Bitcoin Discussion, in a thread about general moderation), though it's typically enforced more heavily in the marketplace for obvious reasons.

Whether this should be applied in the discussion portion of the forums is largely a judgement call on that particular situation, and the posts in question.

[ahpku]

You are exceeding the bump limit in this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1191177.msg12677013#msg12677013. The limit for bumping your topics is once every 24 hours. "update" posts also count as bumps.

♫
   If I listened long enough to you
   I'd find a way to believe that it's all true
   Knowing that you lied straight-faced while I cried
   Still I look to find a reason to believe...
♫

Have you issued a similar warning to my sister thread?

actually I did

Do your stuff
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12765893#msg12765893
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768750#msg12768750
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768754#msg12768754
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768755#msg12768755
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768758#msg12768758
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768760#msg12768760
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768763#msg12768763
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768765#msg12768765
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768789#msg12768789
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768829#msg12768829

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768836#msg12768836
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768852#msg12768852
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768867#msg12768867
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768889#msg12768889
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.msg12768897#msg12768897

Updated.
You have reported 17 posts with 0% accuracy

[ahpku]

Bump?

News URL : http://www.gobankingrates.com/investing/make-bitcoin-part-retirement-plan/

News URL : http://bitrecruit.com/index.php/trends/

News URL : http://www.coindesk.com/european-exchanges-react-to-bitcoin-vat-exemption/

News URL : http://cointelegraph.com/news/115462/chinese-policy-makers-are-starting-to-study-and-rediscover-the-bitcoin-industry-huobi?ref=8

News URL : https://twitter.com/ScalingBitcoin/status/657917543437508613

News URL : https://magnr.com/

News URL : http://bitcoinist.net/fbi-advises-victims-pay-ransom-ransomware/

News URL : http://bitcoinist.net/potential-impact-bitcoin-luxury-e-commerce-industry/

News URL : https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/mcgill-cryptocurrency-club-gives-away-more-free-bitcoin-on-mcgill-campus/

[ahpku]

Bump. Why wasn't this user banned yet?

Have you issued a similar warning to my sister thread?

actually I did

[rebuilder]

Aren't  you just another NotLambChop alt? You certainly have the smell on you, maybe that's why mods treat you differently.

[ahpku]

Aren't  you just another NotLambChop alt? You certainly have the smell on you, maybe that's why mods treat you differently.

Aren't you a bit off topic?
This thread is about fair and evenhanded moderation, also about keeping one's word, so that shit like NotLambchop/BtcCoScammedMex_xxxxx/MrFudged wouldn't happen.

[Quickseller]

I think TheBear did a pretty good job in explaining why you are unable to post consecutively as you have been while the other thread can.

If no one is replying to your thread and you are continuously posting additional content then another, possibly interesting thread is going to get removed from the 1st page. The fact that there is not a lot of conversation in your thread might be a sign that others do not find your thread interesting. On the other hand if there is some amount of conversation going on in a particular thread then adding additional content via a new post is not going to cause that same damage because there is evidence that others find it interesting based on the amount of conversation in that thread.

I think it would probably be a good idea to refine the 1 bump per 24 hour rule a little bit for threads outside of the marketplace sections, and even possibly for threads in the marketplace sections (IMO there should be two separate rules -- but both should be changed somewhat).

I also think the fact that it took so long to get a solid answer as to if threads can be bumped multiple times per day outside of the marketplace sections with solid evidence is a pretty good reason to have the rules be more centralized and not have moderators have to rely on rules that are scattered throughout the forum, and that were made over several years.

[ahpku]

I think TheBear did a pretty good job in explaining why you are unable to post consecutively as you have been while the other thread can.

If no one is replying to your thread and you are continuously posting additional content then another, possibly interesting thread is going to get removed from the 1st page. The fact that there is not a lot of conversation in your thread might be a sign that others do not find your thread interesting.

Or it might be a sign that news reportage is not a dialectic/an interactive activity. I read The New York Times, and, at times, find it interesting. Not once have I felt the need to reply.  I also read books. Without ever writing "OMG, ur awesom! <3!' to the authors.

On the other hand if there is some amount of conversation going on in a particular thread then adding additional content via a new post is not going to cause that same damage because there is evidence that others find it interesting based on the amount of conversation in that thread.

We're talking about dozens of consecutive posts, containing nothing but screen captures and links, the very definition of 'spam.' As opposed to my 2 to 4 posts per day of original content.

But most of all, we're talking about fair, evenhanded moderation, impartiality, and keeping one's word.

[Quickseller]

I think TheBear did a pretty good job in explaining why you are unable to post consecutively as you have been while the other thread can.

If no one is replying to your thread and you are continuously posting additional content then another, possibly interesting thread is going to get removed from the 1st page. The fact that there is not a lot of conversation in your thread might be a sign that others do not find your thread interesting.

Or it might be a sign that news reportage is not a dialectic/an interactive activity. I read The New York Times, and, at times, find it interesting. Not once have I felt the need to reply.  I also read books. Without ever writing "OMG, ur awesom! <3!' to the authors.

People writing comments like "OMG, ur awesom! <3!' would not be conversation, it would be useless garbage. Posts that would indicative of interesting content in a thread would be posts that actually discuss the content of the articles you are posting.

If you have a better way to reliably measure how interesting a thread is then feel free to propose one.  

On the other hand if there is some amount of conversation going on in a particular thread then adding additional content via a new post is not going to cause that same damage because there is evidence that others find it interesting based on the amount of conversation in that thread.

We're talking about dozens of consecutive posts, containing nothing but screen captures and links, the very definition of 'spam.' As opposed to my 2 to 4 posts per day of original content.

The posts themselves may be of somewhat low quality, however if the threads they are posted in generate constructive discussion based on those low quality posts then maybe the posts are not as close to "spam" as you claim.

Bear in mind (no pun intended) that this is a discussion forum, not a news forum, so topics posted should be discussed.

But most of all, we're talking about fair, evenhanded moderation, impartiality, and keeping one's word.

Global moderators only have the ability to permanently ban someone, and if they want someone to be banned on a temporary basis then they must post in the staff section of the forum requesting a ban. I don't think anyone is going to be permanently banned for bumping multiple times as both of you have been doing without first receiving at least 3 temp bans, although I may be wrong about this.

This means that Grue is most likely not going to be able to ban the OP of your sister's thread. Also when a moderator is working a report, they have three choices, to mark it as "good" (this means they took some kind of action -- for example they deleted a post), mark it as "bad" (this means they took no action as a result of your repot, and to "ignore" the report (this means they took no action on the report, but the report will still show up in other moderator's queues for them to handle if desired). If Grue does not feel strongly enough to take action on your reports then he may simply ignore the report. Moderators are volunteers, not employees and they are not specifically required to take any action they do not wish to take.

You also need to take into consideration that moderation is designed to benefit the community as a whole. As I mentioned before, if a potentially interesting thread (as evidenced as one that is frequently replied to) is removed from the first page of a section because a potentially uninteresting thread (based on the lack of replies to such thread) then it is probably fair to say the community would be harmed by the lack of moderation of multiple updates, while the lack of moderation of an interesting thread would not do the same damage.

Additionally, having multiple unreplied-to  posts in a single thread is a sign that the posts you are making may be of low quality and low quality posts are generally removed.

[rebuilder]

Aren't you a bit off topic?
This thread is about fair and evenhanded moderation, also about keeping one's word, so that shit like NotLambchop/BtcCoScammedMex_xxxxx/MrFudged wouldn't happen.

Not really. AFAIK bans are meant to apply to people, not their accounts. Perhaps the mods aren't quite sure you're NotLambChop but smell the stink anyway. (you know, specific writing style, modified propaganda posters, often Chinese, a rather obsessive nature, highly annoying and utterly biased...) Perhaps you're just not being afforded the same leeway as normal users would, since it's highly likely you're an alt of a banned user and shouldn't be allowed to post anything at all any more.

Just like a few others in Speculation... I guess the mods are trying a nuisance mitigation tactic of some sort.

[ahpku]

Global moderators only have the ability to permanently ban someone ... This means that Grue is most likely not going to be able to ban the OP of your sister's thread. ... If Grue does not feel strongly enough to take action on your reports then he may simply ignore the report.

Grue claims that he has issued a warning, as he has done in my case. While I have heeded the warning, my sister thread has chosen to blatantly disregard it. This leaves me with two possible interpretations:
1. The user should be banned for ignoring the warning.
2. No such warning was issued.
Is there a third?

You also need to take into consideration that moderation is designed to benefit the community as a whole.

The 'and also do whatever the fuck I feel like because it is for the greater good' clause. Once introduced, all further discussion is irrelevant.

As I mentioned before, if a potentially interesting thread (as evidenced as one that is frequently replied to)-snip-

Again, you're straying off topic. We aren't discussing the merits of a particular thread, but a user who has [allegedly] been told to stop, and continues to ignore the warning.

@rebuilder: Please stay on topic. If you wish to make an accusation against me, feel free to do so. But not in this thread.
>smell the stink anyway
And lighten up on the insults, faggot.