Ban on signatures for 1xbit campaign participants, do you agree?

[LoyceV]

If negative tags don't solve the problem of people continuing to promote this campaign

Negative tags were never meant to stop people from expressing their opinion, or even from publishing their scams. Negative tags are meant to be a warning. I'd be in favour of showing Trust ratings on all boards, but that has been suggested a few times before and it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

As much as I'd like to get rid of all scams, I do get the "scams are not moderated" stance. Bitcointalk's mission is "to be as free as possible", and as long as they're not causing massive spam (like Yobit did in the past), I don't expect their signature to be banned.
Both online as well as offline I see the same thing happening a lot: people ask for more regulation. They volunteer to sacrifice their freedom bit by bit. Now it's about something I consider a good thing, but next time it's something bad, such as bans for rude comments. I've seen snowflakes make this request a while ago already. The longer I am using Bitcointalk, the more I appreciate theymos' hands off approach.

If a gullible victim doesn't see the ads here, they'll see the same ads at Blockchair or Coinmarketplace. "Be your own bank" means you should "use your own brain".

This guy explained it well:

Should never have put the temporary illusion of safety above personal liberty..
~
This forum started acting like protecting idiots is more important than letting users express their free wills..

[1714765889]

1714765889

[1714765889]

1714765889

[1714765889]

1714765889

[1714765889]

1714765889

[dimonstration]

Why ban the participants if you can easily ban the source which is the 1xbit connected accounts. But this is forum and we are following set of rules which theymos created. Making an additional rules specific for this event will gonna open up for more complicated rules in the future. This is forum and we are all accounted on what we are doing. We don't need to babysit all members here especially if money is involve. There's a lot of trusted casino out there for choices. It's not 1xbit is the only casino here.

[suchmoon]

Correct me if I am wrong and specific signatures can easily be detected and removed.

Simple - ban signatures that link to 1xbit site(s).

If a gullible victim doesn't see the ads here, they'll see the same ads at Blockchair or Coinmarketplace. "Be your own bank" means you should "use your own brain".

I would argue that we should use our collective brain and realize that allowing such malicious scammers like Yobit (which did happen) and 1xbit (which didn't for some reason) to continue screwing with this forum has no upside. They are not here to discuss Bitcoin, they're here only to spam the shit out of it. And we're pretending that rules are set in stone and there is nothing anyone could possibly do because rules and regulations don't allow it. Doesn't get much more snowflaky than that.

BTW theymos the hands-off guy did ban 1xbit from buying forum ads so there's that. He also e.g. bans users doxing him but not users doxing other people with no trade disputes. So there's rules and there's different rules.

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

Can't believe the old line "scams are not moderated here" still floating about.

I mean if there is 100% proof they are scamming why should they be allowed to shitpost all over the forum?

I have had quite intelligent post deleted for less on this forum but pure scams run with impunity.  ? ? ?

The site is probably hosted by someone in the community hence it's being allowed to run wild don't shoot the money maker as they say..

That is also why the message get removed but they don't get banned don't want to waste accounts now do they.

[SmokerFace]

Simple - ban signatures that link to 1xbit site(s).

Lol, you can simply ignore those users but no you want to swing your justice sword, what's the difference between you and hitler?

Suckmoon: Pick a lane, are we smart enough or not.

Yes you're right, we're all smart when there's no one around in our mother's basement.
Smokerfok (picked the lane): Smart beyond the intelligence infinity.

Can't believe the old line "scams are not moderated here" still floating about.

I mean if there is 100% proof they are scamming why should they be allowed to shitpost all over the forum?

Then good luck moderating bounties and giveaways if the forum fails to prevent them from scamming then good luck blaming theymos.

From Smokerface To moderator: If this post gets deleted then please let us know the size of suckmoon's cock you've been feeding sucking on. (if they have a cock)

[BlackHatCoiner]

Both online as well as offline I see the same thing happening a lot: people ask for more regulation. They volunteer to sacrifice their freedom bit by bit.

You're hiding the other half of the truth. These 1xbit-ers have already sacrificed a part of your freedom with the uncontrolled spamming. As for the online & offline life, they are non-analogous situations. Those weirdos have nothing to lose by creating alt-accounts, but their statements' significance remains the same. In real life, there's not such advantage.

We should apply bans, for the sake of the community. The conditions of when it's worth to be applied is another thing to discuss. This is where we disagree.

Banning one scammer while leaving the others unaffected would not address the problem; rather, it will exacerbate it, and what is the point of the DT system if scammers are banned by the moderators?

I address to ban because of spamming, not scamming. But, don't turn a blind eye. It's advisable to mention that the service they're advertising isn't known for being legit.

[NeuroticFish]

I address to ban because of spamming, not scamming.

OP reason for the request was the scam, not the spam.
And many are not aware of how much spam those accounts make.
This means that too many replies will address the ban because of scamming. You've also seen that.


I think that best wold be to close this and open a clean new topic about banning because of spam. It should have a much better success than the rather messy discussion we have now there.
What you think about that, _BlackStar?

[BlackHatCoiner]

I'll have to agree with NeuroticFish. You can't expect mods to eliminate this campaign due to their fraudulent activity. That'd be against the rules;

Q: Why haven't you banned <insert scammer username here> who is an obvious scammer?
A: Possible (or real, not for me to decide) scams are not moderated to prevent moderator abuse. If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions.

Q: Do you moderate/delete (possible) FUD, accusations and untrue information?
A: No. We don't have enough time to check every single piece of information and verify the validity of the sources. Also, just like scams - too much room for bias and abuse.

[examplens]

The answer is simple, NO.
how a clear boundary will be set here? what volume of scams is needed to expel someone from the forum?
Also what we will do with some previous campaigns from well-known fraudsters (Yobit for example). are we going to do it retroactively? Also probably all participants won't wear their signature if they know that he will be banned.

Correct me if I am wrong and specific signatures can easily be detected and removed.

Simple - ban signatures that link to 1xbit site(s).

it can only be if it is excessive spam. If I remember correctly Yobit's signature has been banned a long time ago. they had an automated campaign practically without restriction ideally for spammers.

[_BlackStar]

I think that best wold be to close this and open a clean new topic about banning because of spam. It should have a much better success than the rather messy discussion we have now there.
What you think about that, _BlackStar?

Great idea. Now let's do better without disturbing the forum culture of scam moderation to achieve a cleaner community standard of 1xbit signature spammers. I'm not too worried that some of the other campaign will also be on the watchlist. It's no longer about scams, it's more about the actions of spammers.