Has all the forum staff quit? My reports to moderator = unaddressed for weeks.

[TheButterZone]

I put this term in my Ripple wallet auction:

No one I've negatively rated may reply to this topic (irregardless of whether it's a bid or not), and anyone who does, implicitly agrees to be lifetime-banned from Bitcointalk.org.

Quickseller violated that auction term on 2018-03-04 because I had negatively rated Quickseller on 2015-09-16.

Ggddtt violated that auction term on 2018-03-13 because I had negatively rated Ggddtt on 2017-12-29.

Because Ggddtt was not banned, they were able to continue stalking me, and sabotage my Mystery Box - Round 12 auction. Their sabotage, post-lifetime-ban-agreement posts need to be removed from that topic, or I will have to declare it sabotaged, lock it, then create round 13 (likely to be sabotaged again by the same username if they're not banned or their ban is reversed).

[1714960560]

1714960560

[1714960560]

1714960560

[1714960560]

1714960560

[1714960560]

1714960560

[Quickseller]

Local rules are subject to moderators' discretion. Also stated punishments within local rules are not enforced. You can make a local rule that a certain person and/or subject cannot be discussed, and the penalty is the post is deleted by the moderator, and thats it.

[TheButterZone]

Local rules are subject to moderators' discretion. Also stated punishments within local rules are not enforced. You can make a local rule that a certain person and/or subject cannot be discussed, and the penalty is the post is deleted by the moderator, and thats it.

I love when criminal suspects speak on behalf of, or as if they are, forum staff.

[digaran]

Anybody posting after me should pay me $1000 or get banned. now enforce my rules. can you?

[max2607]

Anybody posting after me should pay me $1000 or get banned. now enforce my rules. can you?

Lol but yeah how can you suddenly make a rule as it isn't even your forum , i have seen your auctions you basically misused your dt power with the weird rules you set now that you are removed from dt you want the moderators to ban someone because he doesn't comply with your rules.
This is the same situation that someone feels that a user is a scammer and he wants him to be banned but as this forum doesn't ban scammers if people want they can give him negative trust
Let me remind you theymos or moderators only ban someone if he is copy pasting , spamming , etc not because he is a scammer

[TheButterZone]

Anybody posting after me should pay me $1000 or get banned. now enforce my rules. can you?

My understanding of local rules is that only the topic starter aka OP may create them & they are only enforceable to the extent of what is verifiable & possible for forum staff to do on SMF. The violations I cited are verifiable because replies to auction topics are non-editable, and it's possible for forum staff to lifetime-ban a username.

There's no way forum staff can verify whether someone has paid you $1000. And as you are not the OP, I am, your "rules" in my topic are null & void. Additionally, if you had substituted "or be citizens' arrested in real life by forum staff" for "or get banned", that would not be possible, as forum staff would not be able to make a citizens' arrest in real life on SMF.

[cunicula]

@OP, are you psycho from birth?

[TheButterZone]

@OP, are you psycho from birth?

Are you a scammer from conception?

[cunicula]

@OP, are you psycho from birth?

Are you a scammer from conception?

Nah..just some Quickseller hacked into my account and scammed someone.
Anyways coming to your topic, i really feel bad when i see you behaving like a psycho , I believe that you are a old bitcoiner but young, right!

[LeGaulois]

I put this term in my Ripple wallet auction:

No one I've negatively rated may reply to this topic (irregardless of whether it's a bid or not), and anyone who does, implicitly agrees to be lifetime-banned from Bitcointalk.org.

Quickseller violated that auction term on 2018-03-04 because I had negatively rated Quickseller on 2015-09-16.

Ggddtt violated that auction term on 2018-03-13 because I had negatively rated Ggddtt on 2017-12-29.

Because Ggddtt was not banned, they were able to continue stalking me, and sabotage my Mystery Box - Round 12 auction. Their sabotage, post-lifetime-ban-agreement posts need to be removed from that topic, or I will have to declare it sabotaged, lock it, then create round 13 (likely to be sabotaged again by the same username if they're not banned or their ban is reversed).

They are so understaffed for the current forum activity, there are a lot of sections in need of some new faces added to handle the moderation.
But to be honest. your rule is not acceptable for a moderator. I know some users can be really evil but your condition is too radical

 While I agree with you such members can be annoying, It could lead to a situation where everyone wants to have his own rules, and moderators would have to respect and apply the thousand or rules created by different people. And some could be conflicting with each other.

Can't you simply open your topic in a self-moderated mode?

[TheButterZone]

I put this term in my Ripple wallet auction:

No one I've negatively rated may reply to this topic (irregardless of whether it's a bid or not), and anyone who does, implicitly agrees to be lifetime-banned from Bitcointalk.org.

Quickseller violated that auction term on 2018-03-04 because I had negatively rated Quickseller on 2015-09-16.

Ggddtt violated that auction term on 2018-03-13 because I had negatively rated Ggddtt on 2017-12-29.

Because Ggddtt was not banned, they were able to continue stalking me, and sabotage my Mystery Box - Round 12 auction. Their sabotage, post-lifetime-ban-agreement posts need to be removed from that topic, or I will have to declare it sabotaged, lock it, then create round 13 (likely to be sabotaged again by the same username if they're not banned or their ban is reversed).

They are so understaffed for the current forum activity, there are a lot of sections in need of some new faces added to handle the moderation.
But to be honest. your rule is not acceptable for a moderator. I know some users can be really evil but your condition is too radical

 While I agree with you such members can be annoying, It could lead to a situation where everyone wants to have his own rules, and moderators would have to respect and apply the thousand or rules created by different people. And some could be conflicting with each other.

Can't you simply open your topic in a self-moderated mode?

It's not possible to make auction topics self-moderated, for obvious reasons. I see no other defense against stalker-saboteurs.

[Ggddtt]

I did not agree to be banned because I didn't bid on your auction of ripple.

YOU AGREED TO BE BANNED because you read my comments.  Why you're not banned is baffling.

Also, if you breathe air in the next 50 seconds you agree to use all your bitcoin to buy bitconnect coin.

[TheButterZone]

I did not agree to be banned because I didn't bid on your auction of ripple.

Stop pretending you're illiterate/dyslexic. The auction term applied to all replies, not merely bids. I will quote it again so you can pretend to not be able to read it, again.

No one I've negatively rated may reply to this topic (irregardless of whether it's a bid or not), and anyone who does, implicitly agrees to be lifetime-banned from Bitcointalk.org.

YOU AGREED TO BE BANNED because you read my comments.  Why you're not banned is baffling.

Also, if you breathe air in the next 50 seconds you agree to use all your bitcoin to buy bitconnect coin.

My understanding of local rules is that only the topic starter aka OP may create them & they are only enforceable to the extent of what is verifiable & possible for forum staff to do on SMF.

As you are not the OP, I am, your "rules" in any of my topics are null & void.

[rapsaodan84]

26.

Those were mostly replaced by self-moderated topics, but local rules can be enforced at the moderator's discretion.

banning someone just for breaking a local rule would be absurd. you can't demand a moderator to enforce that if he doesn't agree

[TheButterZone]

26.

Those were mostly replaced by self-moderated topics, but local rules can be enforced at the moderator's discretion.

banning someone just for breaking a local rule would be absurd. you can't demand a moderator to enforce that if he doesn't agree

There's already implicit agreement in place that the ban be executed, feigned illiteracy/dyslexia aside. The moderator has no legitimate reason to reject a binding agreement between me & my rule violators.

[rapsaodan84]

There's already implicit agreement in place that the ban be executed, feigned illiteracy/dyslexia aside

first you need to establish a local rule is an agreement to full extend. I don't think it is unless the other party explicitly confirms he agrees. implicit agreements or contracts aren't necessary valid, explicit ones are as long as they're not against the law (or forum rules I guess)

The moderator has no legitimate reason to reject a binding agreement between me & my rule violators.

he has no reason to enforce private agreements. I'd bet most moderators wouldn't ban me even if I explicitly agreed to be banned if I post somewhere, unless I break some forum rules
a moderator's job is to enforce the forum's rules, not private agreements

[TheButterZone]

It's a public agreement, terms stated in public, terms violated in public. Absolutely no wiggle room out of it. Especially when the violator quoted the exact rule they violated.

[rapsaodan84]

It's a public agreement, terms stated in public, terms violated in public. Absolutely no wiggle room out of it. Especially when the violator quoted the exact rule they violated.

so you think quoting something is more important than explicitly confirming you agree to it? are you trolling? did you mean to post this 2 days ago on the 1st of April?

does anybody here believe an "implicit agreement" because of a local rule is an agreement to full extend? just curious

[TheButterZone]

It's a public agreement, terms stated in public, terms violated in public. Absolutely no wiggle room out of it. Especially when the violator quoted the exact rule they violated.

so you think quoting something is more important than explicitly confirming you agree to it? are you trolling? did you mean to post this 2 days ago on the 1st of April?

does anybody here believe an "implicit agreement" because of a local rule is an agreement to full extend? just curious

April 02, 2018, 14:12:13 on my screen.

Electronically quoting a contract of auction terms & replying underneath it when specifically, highlighted-ly, prohibited from doing so, serves the same function as signing your name at the bottom of a contract IRL.

[rapsaodan84]

It's a public agreement, terms stated in public, terms violated in public. Absolutely no wiggle room out of it. Especially when the violator quoted the exact rule they violated.

so you think quoting something is more important than explicitly confirming you agree to it? are you trolling? did you mean to post this 2 days ago on the 1st of April?

does anybody here believe an "implicit agreement" because of a local rule is an agreement to full extend? just curious

April 02, 2018, 14:12:13 on my screen.

Electronically quoting a contract of auction terms & replying underneath it when specifically, highlighted-ly, prohibited from do so, serves the same function as signing your name at the bottom of a contract IRL.

sure, just because you say so 

I'd be interested to know if anyone else agrees with you on that

[suchmoon]

It's a public agreement, terms stated in public, terms violated in public. Absolutely no wiggle room out of it. Especially when the violator quoted the exact rule they violated.

so you think quoting something is more important than explicitly confirming you agree to it? are you trolling? did you mean to post this 2 days ago on the 1st of April?

does anybody here believe an "implicit agreement" because of a local rule is an agreement to full extend? just curious

April 02, 2018, 14:12:13 on my screen.

Electronically quoting a contract of auction terms & replying underneath it when specifically, highlighted-ly, prohibited from do so, serves the same function as signing your name at the bottom of a contract IRL.

sure, just because you say so 

I'd be interested to know if anyone else agrees with you on that

I don't think it matters what anyone else - other than the moderators - thinks about it. And since the moderators can use their discretion, and seem to have done so, I don't really see what TBZ can do about it. If those trolls continue trolling perhaps a ban is in order just for that. Perhaps TBZ can appeal this all the way up to the Supreme Leader theymos.

Contracts IRL often get broken and voided and otherwise invalidated, sometimes on ridiculous technicalities, so I'm not sure that's a good example to follow.

[TheButterZone]

Consider the trolling ban request for Ggddtt appealed as far as it needs to go. All their trolling is referenced at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=870352 & backed up to archive.is when necessary.

Contracts IRL often get broken and voided and otherwise invalidated, sometimes on ridiculous technicalities, so I'm not sure that's a good example to follow.

If serial trolls/stalkers/saboteurs are allowed to skate on violating reasonable local rules/auction terms (& also those for whatever reason have managed to skate criminal indictments), then telling OPs they can write reasonable local rules seems like a false pretense just to waste our time. Shut down the Auction subforum if "fuck you OPs, you can get sabotaged with impunity at every turn" is the supreme global rule.

P.S. Can I run auctions outside the auction subforum & self-moderate them to destroy saboteurs, then? I'll have an email notification of each bid reply to the topic, and if I'm fast enough, an archive.is backup of each bid on the actual forum.

[suchmoon]

Consider the trolling ban request for Ggddtt appealed as far as it needs to go. All their trolling is referenced at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=870352 & backed up to archive.is when necessary.

Contracts IRL often get broken and voided and otherwise invalidated, sometimes on ridiculous technicalities, so I'm not sure that's a good example to follow.

If serial trolls/stalkers/saboteurs are allowed to skate on violating reasonable local rules/auction terms (& also those for whatever reason have managed to skate criminal indictments), then telling OPs they can write reasonable local rules seems like a false pretense just to waste our time. Shut down the Auction subforum if "fuck you OPs, you can get sabotaged with impunity at every turn" is the supreme global rule.

P.S. Can I run auctions outside the auction subforum & self-moderate them to destroy saboteurs, then? I'll have an email notification of each bid reply to the topic, and if I'm fast enough, an archive.is backup of each bid on the actual forum.

I don't think it's reasonable to use local rules to impose a ban for ONE reply. Removing such posts seems like a sufficient remedy. But continuous trolling after being warned to not do so - that could be a bannable offense. I have no idea what the threshold should be though. Have you PMed any mods or theymos?

[TheButterZone]

Is "Report to moderator" not a private message to all of them?

Due to his "self-escrowing", pretty sure I told Quickseller never to reply to any of my topics ever again. So yes, this is continuous trolling from both of them after warning. As such, I accurately predicted both would compulsively violate my term. Nobody else did.

[suchmoon]

Is "Report to moderator" not a private message to all of them?

Due to his "self-escrowing", pretty sure I told Quickseller never to reply to any of my topics ever again. So yes, this is continuous trolling from both of them after warning. As such, I accurately predicted both would compulsively violate my term. Nobody else did.

I meant - did you ask mods (or theymos) to respond to this thread.

Quicksy is forum's equivalent of a flaming bag of dog shit but there is no rule against that, sadly.

[Welsh]

Is "Report to moderator" not a private message to all of them?

Due to his "self-escrowing", pretty sure I told Quickseller never to reply to any of my topics ever again. So yes, this is continuous trolling from both of them after warning. As such, I accurately predicted both would compulsively violate my term. Nobody else did.

AFAIK there's an option to have all reports within your jurisdiction sent to your email, but with the amount of reports that they have to deal with on a daily basis I doubt that many have this option enabled and wouldn't doubt it if theymos has already disabled it globally.

Otherwise, the reports are sent via a queue sort of interface.