Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2019, 03:05:49 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Signature advertisers: suggestions?  (Read 1772 times)
squatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 801


STOP SNITCHIN'


View Profile
January 21, 2019, 08:26:15 PM
Merited by The Pharmacist (2)
 #21

I think enforcing Signature Campaign Guidelines will do the forum more good.

Has there ever been any enforcement with this stuff? Take this, for example:

Quote
If you are running a campaign and it becomes blatantly obvious to Staff that you are doing little to nothing to stop spam on your campaign you will be issued a PM warning by a Global Moderator that you need to make immediate improvements to curb low-quality posts. You will have 7 days to remove low-quality posters and respond to the message detailing what you are going to do to make changes to your campaign to reduce the amount of spam. If improvements are not noticeable within 21 days of that and Staff do not believe you are doing enough to prevent low quality posts your signatures will be blacklisted from the forum by an Admin and you will no longer be permitted to advertise here in such a way.

I'm not sure it would be effective anyway. The problem with blacklisting is that ICO fundraising is short term. By the time a month has passed by, a lot of campaigns would be done or nearly done. Dodgy bounty managers can just reappear with alt accounts.

The only other suggestion I can think of, is something I've suggested before: only allow signature campaigns that pay in Bitcoin. The ones paying in made-up tokens have no real cost for the ICO, and thus don't mind "paying" for spam. If the campaign pays in Bitcoin, at least they have something to lose.

Good point. There's a world of difference between tokens printed out of thin air and bitcoins, in terms of advertising costs. It's really apparent when you compare token-paid bounties to BTC-paid campaigns.

1561431949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561431949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561431949
Reply with quote  #2

1561431949
Report to moderator
1561431949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561431949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561431949
Reply with quote  #2

1561431949
Report to moderator
1561431949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561431949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561431949
Reply with quote  #2

1561431949
Report to moderator

0% MINING FEES FOR THE NEXT MONTH. GET PAID IN BTC, ETH, XMR or RVN.

www.cudominer.com Learn More
Easily run CudoOS from a USB flash drive.
Designed for rigs. Manage your mining remotely from Cudo Console.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1561431949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561431949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561431949
Reply with quote  #2

1561431949
Report to moderator
1561431949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561431949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561431949
Reply with quote  #2

1561431949
Report to moderator
stompix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1040



View Profile
January 21, 2019, 08:30:50 PM
 #22

two problems with this. first, people who don't post often shouldn't lose the option to have a signature just because other people are spamming. i really don't think automatically disabling signatures is a fair option, and manually dealing with this is out of the question re staff time.

People who don't post often will get close to zero sig views because their posts will be buried ..or if a few their posts or topics are interesting which will also mean enough merit to have the sig displayed   Cool

second, i'm still not confident that merit accurately measures "quality". i get the feeling a lot of people award merit to posts they agree with and within various in-groups (rather than being strictly related to post quality). if there's a time-based merit requirement for signature, i think the requirements should be really lax, otherwise decent posters will be wrongly penalized. one can of course just "play to the crowd" to farm some merit (and it's not uncommon to see that already today) but.....fuck that.

I share a bit that feeling, the WOT is one example where this farming happens by newbies but it's the best thing we have right now. And if nobody is giving you merit it means that nobody in the crowd shares your opinion, and this should make you think twice why are you posting here.

My idea would be something around 1 merit for 2-4 activity periods, or we could make this to rank dependent or we could make it both posts and merit related (no idea of a formula yet and brain not helping kronk now)
But seriously, if you have 2000 posts and 1 merit in one year....there is something fishy happening.


And then people come with excuse such as they don't get paid to wear that signature or it's voluntary action to promote coin/ICO they like, even though i've seen few members actually do it.

Bring in the ICO spam bingo ticket :p

yahoo62278
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1537



View Profile
January 21, 2019, 08:46:36 PM
 #23



However: the forum will never intermediate these transactions. We will not touch the money involved or perform any sort of "screening", etc.



There are about 20 new " ICO managers/Teams" popping up weekly. I'm not saying the forum should "screen" all of them per say, but maybe some Merit restrictions and rank restrictions should be put into place before anyone can offer managing services?

I don't think think it's out of the question to require teams to use a forum escrow or must hire a manager from an approved list.(There is no actual list unless you count https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5032713.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4412712.0 these) An official list could be made but then the forum is basically endorsing the users put on the list, or the forum could ask a disclaimer to be added to any list be made by the community.

Users that have shown interest in the quality of their posts and posting habits IMO are more likely to actually care about the campaigns they manage. More likely to care about spam.

I also like the suggestion of no token paying signature campaigns allowed. Maybe also include translations as well. I think facebook, twitter, youtube, instragram, reddit, blogs etc are fine as they are not spamming the forum. Just my opinion

▐ █ ██      ▄▀
     █▀
  █ ▀ ▄▄
  ██ ██
█▄ ▀  ▄
▀██ ▄█▀
▄ ▀ ▀ ▄▄
 ██▄ ▄█▀
  ▀▀ ▀ ▄█
  ▀██▄ █▀ ▄█  ▄
    ▀▀    █▀ ██
     ▀███▄   ▀
          ▄███▀
.★ HIGH ★.
.TRUSTED.

MANAGER
       ▀▄
        ▀█
       ▄▄ ▀ █
        ██ ██
        ▄  ▀ ▄█
        ▀█▄ ██▀
       ▄▄ ▀ ▀ ▄
       ▀█▄ ▄██
      █▄ ▀ ▀▀
 ▄ █▄ ▀█  ▄██▀
██ ▀█     ▀▀
▀    ▄███▀
▀███▄
      ▄▀
     █▀
  █ ▀ ▄▄
  ██ ██
█▄ ▀  ▄
▀██ ▄█▀
▄ ▀ ▀ ▄▄
 ██▄ ▄█▀
  ▀▀ ▀ ▄█
  ▀██▄ █▀ ▄█  ▄
    ▀▀    █▀ ██
     ▀███▄   ▀
          ▄███▀
.★ MOST ★.
..POPULAR..

MANAGER
       ▀▄
        ▀█
       ▄▄ ▀ █
        ██ ██
        ▄  ▀ ▄█
        ▀█▄ ██▀
       ▄▄ ▀ ▀ ▄
       ▀█▄ ▄██
      █▄ ▀ ▀▀
 ▄ █▄ ▀█  ▄██▀
██ ▀█     ▀▀
▀    ▄███▀
▀███▄
▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄█████████████████████▄
███████████████████████
▄█████████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
▀██████████▌▐██████████▀
▀█████████▌▐█████████▀
▀████████████████▀
▀▀████████▀▀
▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄█████████████████████▄
███████████████████████
▄█████████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
▀██████████▌▐██████████▀
▀█████████▌▐█████████▀
▀████████████████▀
▀▀████████▀▀
        BE MY NEXT
..satisfied client..
▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
▄▀▀▄▄█████████▄▄▀▀▄
▄▀▄█████████████████▄▀▄
▄▀▄██████████████▀▀███▄▀▄
▄▀▄██████████▀▀▀    ████▄▀▄
█ ██████▀▀▀   ▄▀   ██████ █
█ ███▄     ▄█▀     ██████ █
█ ██████▄ █▀      ███████ █
▀▄▀██████▌▐       ██████▀▄▀
▀▄▀██████ ▄██▄  ██████▀▄▀
▀▄▀███████████▄█████▀▄▀
▀▄▄▀▀█████████▀▀▄▄▀
▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀
██ █ ▌
vlom
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1105



View Profile WWW
January 21, 2019, 09:22:42 PM
Merited by fillippone (2)
 #24

Honestly, I find signature advertisements distasteful, and it is not impossible that I will someday ban the practice.

finally. i send you all the merit i have. but i dont have any.

my advice: ban it asap.

EDIT: @theymos: only 4 (including myself) dont earn something with their post in this topic. thats all you have to know

|\¯¯ \   /¯¯/| |¯¯¯|__'  /¯¯,¯¯\     /¯¯\/¯ \'  
\  \__\/__/ /' |_____'| |\____ /|'  /__ (\/)__\
  '\|____ |/'   |_____'|  \|___ |/ °|___ |v|___|
    '                                             
    '         [/colo
Hhampuz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1625


In memory of Zepher.


View Profile
January 21, 2019, 09:24:09 PM
Last edit: January 21, 2019, 09:44:43 PM by Hhampuz
 #25

I think enforcing Signature Campaign Guidelines will do the forum more good.

Agreed! I know I'm not the best manager out here but I try not to incentivize spam while making sure everyone follow some rules to make sure the overall environment gets better.

The only other suggestion I can think of, is something I've suggested before: only allow signature campaigns that pay in Bitcoin. The ones paying in made-up tokens have no real cost for the ICO, and thus don't mind "paying" for spam. If the campaign pays in Bitcoin, at least they have something to lose.

I can't stress enough how good this would be. Honestly, if we were to remove all the ICO signatures it would probably not be as big of a problem. I tried my hand at an ICO Campaign once, for about two weeks until it went to shit and I'm never going to bother with it again. As mentioned by yahoo as well there's several "Bounty Manager" teams popping up in Services daily, I doubt any of them would have the rep to actually work on a smaller sized organic signature campaign for a bitcoin mixer, as an example.

Not to mention that I've seen some of these "teams" have groups on telegram with thousands upon thousands of newbie accounts signed up to join any new bounty they'll launch. I for one would not miss it one bit if removed.

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1692



View Profile WWW
January 21, 2019, 10:36:30 PM
Last edit: January 21, 2019, 10:55:37 PM by Quickseller
Merited by Bitcoin_Arena (1)
 #26

I don’t think theymos will restrict campaigns to those that only pay in bitcoin because of free market issues. This would clearly benefit those who participate in dig deals.

I am not a huge fan of enforcing the “signature campaign guidelines” for managers because it will lead to campaigns being run(managed) off the site when advertisers are banned. This is also why forcing campaigns to pay in bitcoin will not work.

I would note that it is not uncommon for a group of people to wear similar signatures because they hold a similar stance on issues they feel strongly about or want to support similar statements.

Do you think I am spamming? If so, you are probably wrong.
bill gator
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1025



View Profile
January 21, 2019, 10:44:12 PM
 #27

it will lead to campaigns being run off the site when advertisers are banned.

Either I misunderstand what you're trying to say or I don't see the problem with losing these campaigns. If a campaign is unable to uphold the Signature Campaign guidelines, then what exactly is the issue with them moving off-site? Unless you mean to say the management of the campaign will be taken off-site and the participants will remain here.

It would be interesting if there was some kind of a process that would determine who can appropriately manage a campaign, sort of like there is a process that determines which trust values appear by default. This of course leaves bias as a part of the equation and means we'll have to hammer out some criteria. Done properly though, I don't think it would be too terrible to enforce, sort of like DT is somewhat self-sufficient (at least, that's the goal).
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1692



View Profile WWW
January 21, 2019, 10:56:07 PM
 #28

it will lead to campaigns being run off the site when advertisers are banned.

Either I misunderstand what you're trying to say or I don't see the problem with losing these campaigns. If a campaign is unable to uphold the Signature Campaign guidelines, then what exactly is the issue with them moving off-site? Unless you mean to say the management of the campaign will be taken off-site and the participants will remain here.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I edited my post for clarity.

Quote
It would be interesting if there was some kind of a process that would determine who can appropriately manage a campaign, sort of like there is a process that determines which trust values appear by default. This of course leaves bias as a part of the equation and means we'll have to hammer out some criteria. Done properly though, I don't think it would be too terrible to enforce, sort of like DT is somewhat self-sufficient (at least, that's the goal).
I don't think theymos wants to be involved in giving licenses to get to perform a job.

Do you think I am spamming? If so, you are probably wrong.
bill gator
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1025



View Profile
January 21, 2019, 10:58:23 PM
 #29

Would it be a difficult/unfeasible task to enforce a rule that users advertising for banned advertisers are given a few days to remove their signature before being suspended/banned?

I don't think theymos wants to be involved in giving licenses to get to perform a job.

I meant more along the lines of a community-enforcement; similar to the direction DT is taking.
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1692



View Profile WWW
January 21, 2019, 11:06:29 PM
 #30

Would it be a difficult task to enforce a rule that users advertising for banned advertisers are given a few days to remove their signature before being suspended/banned?
Would it be difficult to enforce?

From a technical standpoint, no. It would be very easy.

From a fairness standpoint, yes. There could be some people who are advertising a company outside of the signature campaign, for example because they have an ownership stake in the company, or work for the company in a role that benefits when the company has increased sales/volume.

Even if this rule were to be enforced, campaigns could be managed entirely outside of the forum, which would make it difficult to rule out someone using a bunch of accounts to wear a particular signature, and post a bunch of garbage, making it look like the campaign has a lot of people enrolled making lots of shit posts, when in reality, these people have nothing to do with the campaign.

I don't think theymos wants to be involved in giving licenses to get to perform a job.

I meant more along the lines of a community-enforcement; similar to the direction DT is taking.
That is still a de-facto license. I also have a feeling changes will eventually be made to the DT system moving it in the opposite direction from where it has recently gone.

Do you think I am spamming? If so, you are probably wrong.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 5934


View Profile
January 21, 2019, 11:16:02 PM
 #31

What is the problem we're trying to solve with this?

Increase the forum's usefulness for its members.

Also, forum systems can be designed to encourage good behavior. For example, if I got everyone involved in sig ads to use a forum-provided signature management system / stats tracker, then I could show only a "modified impressions" value which takes the real impressions value and subtracts from it if the person is getting posts deleted by mods (or something like that).

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
bill gator
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1025



View Profile
January 21, 2019, 11:17:47 PM
 #32

From a fairness standpoint, yes. There could be some people who are advertising a company outside of the signature campaign, for example because they have an ownership stake in the company, or work for the company in a role that benefits when the company has increased sales/volume.

I don't know if I agree that it is fair to allow someone to continue to advertise for a banned advertiser, simply because they have an increased personal stake in that advertiser. I might be misunderstanding your statement again, though, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I know there currently aren't any campaigns that are operating off-site, but admittedly this is not something I keep up with in any capacity. It would seem only banned advertisers would have any reason to do so, but I might be wrong about this. Regularly it is very easy to tell if someone is genuinely associated with a campaign, because campaign managers are extremely transparent with their spreadsheets and applications are normally public. Granted this isn't a rule, but it would seem an easy guideline to adhere to if you want to run a legitimate campaign.

I'm mostly thinking out-loud, and I see where you're coming from, but there seems to be applicable answers to these questions.

That is still a de-facto license.

I feel like we're playing word-games at this point. Tongue If there were nothing resembling a "license" then there would be no enforcement of any guidelines and we'd be where we currently are (or worse).
bitart
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 614


Vires in Numeris


View Profile
January 21, 2019, 11:21:06 PM
 #33

...
My idea would be something around 1 merit for 2-4 activity periods, or we could make this to rank dependent or we could make it both posts and merit related (no idea of a formula yet and brain not helping kronk now)
But seriously, if you have 2000 posts and 1 merit in one year....there is something fishy happening.
...
I like this one. I'm thinking about something similar.
Let's say, you have to "pay" 1 merit/month to be able to wear a paid signature (and you can only use your earned merits for it).
This way, there's no need to change the merit requirements for ranking up, because newbies can still become juniors if they manage to get 1 merit, juniors can rank up if they get more, etc...
So they will have a chance to become even a legendary sometime in the future.
But if they choose to use their earned merits to be able to take part in a signature campaign (in order to monetize their time spent here instead of ranking up), that's their own decision.
This way, you can stop spammers, because they will quickly fall back to newbie rank, if they take part in a signature campaing, but they don't post useful stuff.
If the members are taking part in a signature campaing and they post quality stuff, they will manage to rank up parallel with monetizing their skills and time (ideal situation).
1 merit per month is really not much for a good poster, but will stop spammers on the short run (I mean they would just have to stop spamming for money if they run out of merit. If they want, they can spam for free, but they won't... or they have to start posting quality stuff, if they want to wear signature again).

Individual signatures have to remain free in the future, and we should not restrict them to e.g. black and white or small font, etc... If someone wants to advertise himself with a kind of colorful signature like the paid campaigns have, why not...

The question is, how to decide if a signature is paid or free?
If theymos implements a kind of central signature database from where the campaign members can choose their paid signature, this would solve the problem for the decent campaigns.
But how to restrict shady ICOs, if they start to manage their campaigns off site and members say that their signatures are not paid? I know that it's possible to prove that they are paid in the end, but it requires effort and time from forum stuff or members.

Or we decide that having a signature is a kind of premium stuff here and that's not available for everyone (like the avatar). It's still better that you know that if you have the necessary merits, you can set up a signature (this is a kind of motivatoin to post quality stuff), compared to the situation when theymos just ban all the signatures...




Ranly123
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 104



View Profile
January 21, 2019, 11:33:48 PM
 #34

I don't see any problem with regards to signature campaigns. What triggers me is that even those scam projects are allowed to announce their bounty campaigns in this forum and even ask for more posts that makes bounty hunters looks like spamming. Maybe change the payment method on signature campaigns and bounty campaigns from token payment to Bitcoin or ethereum payments. In that way, scam projects will think twice before engaging on their anomalies.

jackg
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1265


https://bit.ly/2FR9nyn - free python tutorials


View Profile
January 21, 2019, 11:44:38 PM
 #35

I'm not sure about the idea of banning them outright. It's already possible to hide signatures and block those who look like they're in a signature campaign.

Merit limits could be enforced I guess but I doubt it'll do much. There are lots of users here that are in signature campaigns and a lot of prole go over their maximum weekly limit and just keep posting anyway...

If I were going off donations for helping people in the time I've been here and helped people, I'd have $40 in three years...

Renting signatures to people as a tax and donating the proceeds to charity would be a nice idea. I feel if sigs were removed completely, a lot of users will come for a random trades and then go again there's be no community or reason for the trust and merit system because someone will buy something with money they've earnt in fiat and go again until they next have a nice amount of money to plunge into more goods six months to a year later.



My point in this post is that I've come across users who have lived off signature campaigns in the past and it's helped them in between jobs to stop them being completely cut off. There's the issue that quite a few of these are spammy but a few high merit earners in the past I've known personally to do this sort of thing.

DarkStar_
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1826



View Profile WWW
January 21, 2019, 11:51:53 PM
 #36

Also, forum systems can be designed to encourage good behavior. For example, if I got everyone involved in sig ads to use a forum-provided signature management system / stats tracker, then I could show only a "modified impressions" value which takes the real impressions value and subtracts from it if the person is getting posts deleted by mods (or something like that).

I don't think enough posts are getting deleted at the moment for it to make a difference.

fillippone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 538


Self Made Hero Member + merit -activity


View Profile
January 21, 2019, 11:53:46 PM
 #37

Honestly, I find signature advertisements distasteful, and it is not impossible that I will someday ban the practice.

finally. i send you all the merit i have. but i dont have any.

my advice: ban it asap.

EDIT: @theymos: only 4 (including myself) dont earn something with their post in this topic. thats all you have to know
I am not earning with my signature, while a am giving away knowledge.
Sent you merits, even if I don’t like to ban something, I think the effort put in those signature campaign could be better put at work on bitcoin itself.

iasenko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 1082


I'm no longer on DT,protesting against the madness


View Profile WWW
January 22, 2019, 12:13:10 AM
Merited by xandry (1)
 #38

We need penalty for those who spam a lot, if you have like 3 deleted posts by moderator for the past 2 activity cycles then your signature should be off for at least a month.

Some clear rules for the bounty managers + a requirement to become a manger you need to earn minimum 10 merit.

If you cannot post/recognise quality content, you cannot properly manage a campaign and most likely allow spammy participants.

suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 3537


Pedal-powered plaguebot


View Profile
January 22, 2019, 12:30:03 AM
 #39

What is the problem we're trying to solve with this?

Increase the forum's usefulness for its members.

Also, forum systems can be designed to encourage good behavior. For example, if I got everyone involved in sig ads to use a forum-provided signature management system / stats tracker, then I could show only a "modified impressions" value which takes the real impressions value and subtracts from it if the person is getting posts deleted by mods (or something like that).

I like the positive reinforcement vibe but I think I'm too cynical to see how this can work without some stick to go with that carrot. Shitty campaigns already cost next to nothing to run (paying in worthless tokens) and would cost even less if the forum provides better management tools so they'll just leech and keep spamming. They don't seem to care about post quality or if the post gets deleted.

We need penalty for those who spam a lot, if you have like 3 deleted posts by moderator for the past 2 activity cycles then your signature should be off for at least a month.

Yeah, something like that, although 3 is way too low. I think I got 3 deleted just recently and I swear it wasn't my fault Wink

iasenko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 1082


I'm no longer on DT,protesting against the madness


View Profile WWW
January 22, 2019, 12:38:46 AM
 #40

Yeah, something like that, although 3 is way too low. I think I got 3 deleted just recently and I swear it wasn't my fault Wink

When I say deleted by mods I don't mean the posts remove when a thread gets deleted. I also gave some posts deleted because warning the newbies in their threads and they get deleted.

What I mean are the posts reported by others and marked as good. so you have been actually reported for the specific post.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!