Why was this deleted?

[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.

[1714115850]

1714115850

[1714115850]

1714115850

[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.