My account SebastianJu banned for 14 days now?

[sase007]

Will you alway be first warned before ban?
Via PM or directly after post?
Where i can read more about those rules?

You are given no informatoin about a ban, they are not obligated to give you information.
They may suggested how a user can avoid it, but if they continue then they will bann them.
It is just a temp bann and so will be lifted after around 7-14 days anyway and there is no documentation on this I don't think on the forum.

[Lauda]

Will you alway be first warned before ban?

It is just a temp bann and so will be lifted after around 7-14 days anyway and there is no documentation on this I don't think on the forum.

Do you have to be warned by an admin before getting temp/perma-banned?

Occasionally it is possible that moderators send out warnings via a PM. However, in most cases the first ban is your first warning. If you keep ignoring these warnings you end up permanently banned. However, this is all becoming off-topic (IMO).

[SebastianJu_alt]

Something I found working for myself when I wanted everyone to notice an edit/addition to the last post I made is copying the post, adding what I have to say, and then deleting the first one.
I don't double post that way and everyone gets the info about a new reply in their list - for me (myself), that's the solution I prefer.

If you edit a post (and you are the last post in a thread), the thread will reappear in "Watchlist" and "Show new replies to your posts" even if people read the previous version of the post. However, it will not bump the thread in the section overview.
This is, of course, if I'm not mistaken, but I'm 99.9% sure.

Didn't know about that. Good to know.

Thanks for the infos, I think both cases could not violate the rules then.

When adding a notice on top of the post about the update then it likely will be recognized as a post with new infos.

However, with a thread where only yourself is posting in it would not work to delete the post, since it would kill the thread in whole. And not all info can be put into one post then. For example posting info about a scammer investigation. Can be huge. Of course adding might alert some users, though many, I believe, only checks out the forums and will not see the thread anymore maybe then. If it is still on the page then it might have a "NEW" sign to it.




I'm not sure if the consecutive posting rule is mentioned on the forum officially somewhere so it might be good to know when a previously time banned account gets out of the risk zone of getting permabanned with the next ban. How long does it take?

I mean in case there are several unwritten rules and some users don't even would get a warning then it could happen fast that a permaban happens.

I was told there is a thread for unofficial rules here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 but the consecutive posting is not mentioned I think. And that is not an official list. So even with that there might be rules a poster can unknowingly run into and get permabanned fast since it seems not everyone gets warned.

I think it might be good to make rules, that are so dangerous to an account, official then. At least the thread was opened by a staff member so it is somewhat official because of that though it seems still risky.

You know, at the moment I somewhat fear to go against another rule and being permabanned. And I hope I don't have to live my whole forum life now with the risk of another ban being my last. That the timeban gets forgotten and after that the next ban would be a timeban again first before it would become a permaban.

Just saying, I guess clear rules might be able to make the life of staff and moderators alot more easy. Other users could warn others by linking to the official rules, users being banned could check themselfes or being told by others about the specific rule they broke and mods and staff would have less work at all.

[mexxer-2]

SebastianJu_alt, did you edited that post? Because the thread re-appeared in my "Show new replies to your posts"-list.

Nope it was me possibly, I tried a test and then deleted the post because of my mistake(forgot to include the thread in my watchlist of my alt   )

Oookay, here goes an edit

Edit 1: Either it works only after 5 min edit interval(possibly similar to edit notification of the post, the dotted line) or it doesn't at all. Didn't appear on my watchlist(alt's)

Edit 2: Aight here goes the 5 min interval edit. Also Mitchell, I think its something else(quite hard to explain) that you're talking about

Edit 3: Aand it didn't work

[Mitchell]

Hmmm, strange. I was pretty certain that worked as I saw it written down somewhere, guess not. My bad.

[TECSHARE]

I was told there is a thread for unofficial rules here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 but the consecutive posting is not mentioned I think. And that is not an official list. So even with that there might be rules a poster can unknowingly run into and get permabanned fast since it seems not everyone gets warned.

I think it might be good to make rules, that are so dangerous to an account, official then. At least the thread was opened by a staff member so it is somewhat official because of that though it seems still risky.

You know, at the moment I somewhat fear to go against another rule and being permabanned. And I hope I don't have to live my whole forum life now with the risk of another ban being my last. That the timeban gets forgotten and after that the next ban would be a timeban again first before it would become a permaban.

Just saying, I guess clear rules might be able to make the life of staff and moderators alot more easy. Other users could warn others by linking to the official rules, users being banned could check themselfes or being told by others about the specific rule they broke and mods and staff would have less work at all.

There are no official rules posted because that is the way they like it. If there were posted rules the staff might also have to obey them. Additionally if there were posted official rules then they wouldn't be able to keep everyone on the forum in a perpetual state of chill effect by forcing everyone using it to kiss the staffs ass in the hopes that they will not get extra creative with interpreting the rules in order to peruse a vendetta against you for being critical of them, and destroy all the work required to build up a reputation around here. Then anyone without a reputation is easily marginalized. In short this creates leverage over every user no matter how trusted they are or how much they contribute.

There will never be official rules or terms of service on this forum because Theymos fancies himself an "anarcho-capitalist", and like most "anarcho-capitalists" the rules are whatever he says they are according to how it serves his own interests at any given time. Funny he likes to call himself an "anarcho-capitalist", but the definition of anarchy is "without leaders" - (an - without, archy - leaders). Yet still he rules the forum from the top down with no meaningful control being allowed to anyone else within the community. Sounds like anarchy to me  

Rules are more than just a form of government, it is a system of informing everyone in a community what is expected of them. Without this, people are simply left to examine the behaviors of others to extrapolate what the real rules are, and everyone knows that the rules are uniformly enforced upon everyone here right? No that couldn't cause any confusion at all... not that they care if the community is in disarray. That makes it much easier to misdirect them while they are being robbed.

[Mitchell]

The unofficial list of official rules contains just that, official rules summarized in an unofficial list.

[Lauda]

Additionally if there were posted official rules then they wouldn't be able to keep everyone on the forum in a perpetual state of chill effect by forcing everyone using it to kiss the staffs ass in the hopes that they will not get extra creative with interpreting the rules in order to peruse a vendetta against you for being critical of them, and destroy all the work required to build up a reputation around here.

That's not how this work, at least not with me. I'm very strict and do not care about other factors involved (e.g. rank; "kissing the staffs ass"). In fact, it might even get you into more trouble with me.

There will never be official rules or terms of service on this forum because Theymos fancies himself an "anarcho-capitalist", and like most "anarcho-capitalists" the rules are whatever he says they are according to how it serves his own interests at any given time. Funny he likes to call himself an "anarcho-capitalist", but the definition of anarchy is "without leaders" - (an - without, archy - leaders). Yet still he rules the forum from the top down with no meaningful control being allowed to anyone else within the community. Sounds like anarchy to me  

Moderators "control" the community, theymos rarely ever intervenes (there isn't usually a reason for him to do so). So no, this is not "anarchy". You're just appealing to emotion because you've been burned here.

[botany]

Hmmm, strange. I was pretty certain that worked as I saw it written down somewhere, guess not. My bad.

Editing a post makes it appear unread, but doesn't show up in the watchlist.
This is probably the post you were referring to

Editing will make a thread appear as unread with the new icon, but it won't show up in the watchlist. Just a coincidence you noticed it here, probably since I edit my posts right after posting frequently to clarify something, and meta is kind of slow moving, especially early morning.

[mexxer-2]

Edit 2: Aight here goes the 5 min interval edit. Also Mitchell, I think its something else(quite hard to explain) that you're talking about

Damn it botany I was trying to put it simply 

Hmmm, strange. I was pretty certain that worked as I saw it written down somewhere, guess not. My bad.

Editing a post makes it appear unread, but doesn't show up in the watchlist.
This is probably the post you were referring to

Editing will make a thread appear as unread with the new icon, but it won't show up in the watchlist. Just a coincidence you noticed it here, probably since I edit my posts right after posting frequently to clarify something, and meta is kind of slow moving, especially early morning.

[Heutenamos]

I'm not sure if the consecutive posting rule is mentioned on the forum officially somewhere

I think there is only one rule you/we should be aware of in order to avoid anything you wish,which is No.23.

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

I was told there is a thread for unofficial rules here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 but the consecutive posting is not mentioned I think. And that is not an official list. So even with that there might be rules a poster can unknowingly run into and get permabanned fast since it seems not everyone gets warned.

I think it might be good to make rules, that are so dangerous to an account, official then. At least the thread was opened by a staff member so it is somewhat official because of that though it seems still risky.

You know, at the moment I somewhat fear to go against another rule and being permabanned. And I hope I don't have to live my whole forum life now with the risk of another ban being my last. That the timeban gets forgotten and after that the next ban would be a timeban again first before it would become a permaban.

Just saying, I guess clear rules might be able to make the life of staff and moderators alot more easy. Other users could warn others by linking to the official rules, users being banned could check themselfes or being told by others about the specific rule they broke and mods and staff would have less work at all.

There are no official rules posted because that is the way they like it. If there were posted rules the staff might also have to obey them. Additionally if there were posted official rules then they wouldn't be able to keep everyone on the forum in a perpetual state of chill effect by forcing everyone using it to kiss the staffs ass in the hopes that they will not get extra creative with interpreting the rules in order to peruse a vendetta against you for being critical of them, and destroy all the work required to build up a reputation around here. Then anyone without a reputation is easily marginalized. In short this creates leverage over every user no matter how trusted they are or how much they contribute.

There will never be official rules or terms of service on this forum because Theymos fancies himself an "anarcho-capitalist", and like most "anarcho-capitalists" the rules are whatever he says they are according to how it serves his own interests at any given time. Funny he likes to call himself an "anarcho-capitalist", but the definition of anarchy is "without leaders" - (an - without, archy - leaders). Yet still he rules the forum from the top down with no meaningful control being allowed to anyone else within the community. Sounds like anarchy to me  

Rules are more than just a form of government, it is a system of informing everyone in a community what is expected of them. Without this, people are simply left to examine the behaviors of others to extrapolate what the real rules are, and everyone knows that the rules are uniformly enforced upon everyone here right? No that couldn't cause any confusion at all... not that they care if the community is in disarray. That makes it much easier to misdirect them while they are being robbed.

There is nothing theymos could do here,this act looks like a lower level get together or team up and TBH there could be no consensus as we all know that is just a MYTH or fantasy or whatever bullshit.

The blind,deaf,brainwashed people/community supporting it and daydreaming to get to that abusable position one day is the problem.This obviously gives wings to the person who is already on that position and he will dominate as many people as he can and as much as possible,maybe the meaning of evolution in some sense ?

The saddest part is that we humans are the pinnacle of evolution and we have a BRAIN which could actually think,Imagine and Create things ,worlds or even species and which also created Bitcoin but we don't intend to use it and just go by puny judgments and discriminate people by the race they belong to, language they speak or the place they were born at and make similar groups to compete and win,BUT WHY ? cause "we want to be better,we want to be Cool ,we want to show them less" and yes we are stuck there ..lols.Very low life though.
  
IMO if i am benefiting (let it be signature or trading or any other service of mine being run on here) from anything made or is being taken care by theymos then i don't think having negativity against him is a sign of good personality in general.

In simple words,"Dodge the Doge",cause it has nothing to do with BIT

because you've been burned here.

are you seriously convinced with that ?  like serious seriously ?

[Lauda]

because you've been burned here.

are you seriously convinced with that ?  like serious seriously ?

I don't need to be convinced of anything. Don't you not know the story, the months of pointless arguing? Some people tend to act like this if they are unable to get their way.

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

I doubt that many users have actually read the rules at all.

[dogie]

This is what happens when you start asking too many questions about the staff. Suddenly all these unwritten rules you never knew existed are enforced. Funny how this seems to happen over and over and over and everyone is either in line to brown nose or pretends it never happened.

What you wrote is just pure nonsense. It was well known that you should not be double or triple post. Additionally he was warned(!) several times by both staff and non staff members. Read the thread next time before you appeal to emotion.

I do believe there are situations where double and tripple posting is suitable, for example

• Multiple discussion threads where one of the replies is exceptionally large
• Multiple, multiple discussion threadswhere a single post would end up replying to 9 people
• Fewer discussion threads but with brand new members (who are most likely to quote the entire reply)

The aim with the above is to prevent a thread becoming entirely useless as everyone's reply is quoting everyone elses discusses, making each post 50 lines high.

[OgNasty]

I just wanted to pop in and say that the volume of bitcointalk account escrow requests I've gotten since SebastianJu was banned seems excessive to me.  

I would like to see escrow agents stop providing escrow for bitcointalk accounts.  Besides being incredibly annoying and problematic, it is basically just assisting scammers.  

[hilariousandco]

I just wanted to pop in and say that the volume of bitcointalk account escrow requests I've gotten since SebastianJu was banned seems excessive to me.  

I would like to see escrow agents stop providing escrow for bitcointalk accounts.  Besides being incredibly annoying and problematic, it is basically just assisting scammers.  

Not providing escrow for accounts will only assist scammers even more. Accounts will be sold regardless so it's better a third party can ensure a safe transaction.

[SebastianJu_alt]

I just wanted to pop in and say that the volume of bitcointalk account escrow requests I've gotten since SebastianJu was banned seems excessive to me.  

I would like to see escrow agents stop providing escrow for bitcointalk accounts.  Besides being incredibly annoying and problematic, it is basically just assisting scammers.  

Not providing escrow for accounts will only assist scammers even more. Accounts will be sold regardless so it's better a third party can ensure a safe transaction.

This is my conclusion also, staff and moderators have the possibility to check the trades that went on on the forum. I think that was the conclusion the staff came to after the test of account trades being banned. They happened anyway, only without any way to find out what happened. Trades done over private messages are different at least.

Besides. An account trade involves alot of work for an escrow, which means alot of time goes into. For example only checking the safety of the account with this checklist: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1362297.msg13863985#msg13863985

Then those trades are mostly only $50 to $100, which means practically no tip for the escrow at the end. Mostly the traders are newbie accounts anyway and vanish without tipping or promise to tip but never anything happens.

Means escrowing account trades is more an idealistic thing for providing safety and making the life of scammers harder.




Though OgNasty, I wonder what you mean with the many requests. From November till february the 15th I escrowed 9 account trades and 1 of it ended refunded. So in 3,5 months only 8 bitcointalk account trades. Maybe you mean accounts priced lower than $50? I think I have around 1 each 1 to 3 days that I deny because it is a lot of work and the risk is not comparable to the work amount. That you receive so many requests for bitcointalk forum account escrows is probably not because of my ban.

I think you overestimate the amount of escrow trades I handle too. What you wrote me some weeks ago let it look like you escrow way more than I do and often enough escrow requests to me end with you because you are online more often.

The only difference in the kind of trades that I accept is that I often leave the buyer the choice to accept a trade at all. I explain the risks and that I only can provide protection up to the point where I released the coins to the seller. If the buyer denies then he is safe because of knowledge gained, if he still agrees then it is his choice then. At least the protection given is higher than without an escrow. It's similar to escrowing an ICO. One could claim that it is useless. Once the issuer receives the bitcoins from escrow address he can vanish after dropping his coins. But in reality handling escrows led to, I think 2 ICO's being stopped because I hold the coins three days longer after the altcoins were spread and wallets given out. It turned out that issuers might be found scammy in the meanwhile, not properly burned coins or connected to a scamcoin. So most investors prefer an escrowed ICO, except with trustworthy members as issuers. And it gives some more protection in normal cases too.

Well, I guess you know that already.

[OgNasty]

Well, I will be happy when you return to handling escrows.  I feel like I'm the one being punished here.

[james.lent]

I just wanted to pop in and say that the volume of bitcointalk account escrow requests I've gotten since SebastianJu was banned seems excessive to me.  

I would like to see escrow agents stop providing escrow for bitcointalk accounts.  Besides being incredibly annoying and problematic, it is basically just assisting scammers.  

Not providing escrow for accounts will only assist scammers even more. Accounts will be sold regardless so it's better a third party can ensure a safe transaction.

Then, sold accounts should be left a neutral feedback stating account has been sold/changed ownership. This way, people would be aware of it. Many are buying accounts to scam. Gone were the days when they bought accounts to harvest signature campaigns.

[Quickseller]

I just wanted to pop in and say that the volume of bitcointalk account escrow requests I've gotten since SebastianJu was banned seems excessive to me. 

I would like to see escrow agents stop providing escrow for bitcointalk accounts.  Besides being incredibly annoying and problematic, it is basically just assisting scammers. 

Not providing escrow for accounts will only assist scammers even more. Accounts will be sold regardless so it's better a third party can ensure a safe transaction.

Then, sold accounts should be left a neutral feedback stating account has been sold/changed ownership. This way, people would be aware of it. Many are buying accounts to scam. Gone were the days when they bought accounts to harvest signature campaigns.

If this were to become the norm then people will assume that accounts without this neutral trust have not been purchased and people that are able to buy an account without this trust will have an easier time scamming if/when they attempt to do so.

This neutral trust may also be off putting to signature campaign managers

[The Sceptical Chymist]

If, if, if.

And since when do campaign managers care about neutral trust or whether an account was bought?