Signature Ban Appeal and Q&A : appeal your sigban here

[icopress]

Unblocking a signature should be a quick process. No need to add drama out of thin air.

The solution is super simple:

5 people whose votes are taken into account:

- nutildah (based on his role as the initiator of the ban).
- LoyceV (based on his neutrality).
- buwaytress (the heart of the gambling section).
- d5000 (one of the best posters).

And one more of these neutral guys: vapourminer, TryNinja, JayJuanGee

There is no need for these behind-the-scenes games, big walls of text or anything else that eats up your time.

[LTU_btc]

Most of these people privately told me they don't agree with what's currently happening. Not sure why everybody's so afraid to speak up on a fucking forum though - but that's another topic and another reason why BTT is as disappointing as it is.

I tell you simple thing - not many people want to go against someone who is in power position. They don't want to become enemies or appear on radars themselves. It's much more convenient to lick ass in public.
Similar like at work - usually you don't go against someone who is above you. There is good phrase said by one person that I know - one day you're looking for a justice, next day you're looking for a job.

I also wanted to stay away from these things, but this time I can't. Yes, quality of gambling board is awful in general and something has to be done. Initially I liked this idea, but when I see how it's implemented, it doesn't looks right. After reading few posts of nutildah here, looks that he don't have enough depth in Gambling board to judge things correctly. Ok, I'm just average member here, but when you see most respected and known people from Gambling board criticising ban procedure, then something just isn't right.

You've been doing way too much burst posting. Most of your recent posts are only 2-4 minutes apart. Frankly I don't know how you write so much in such a short amount of time. I'm pretty sure this isn't allowed in most campaigns although it doesn't seem to be a specific rule for your campaign. It doesn't help that you're doing it for the sake of making posts that not many people seem to care about or read.

Interestingly, you have one of the most routine posting schedules of any account I've seen so far. Its really a commendable level of consistency.

Not talking about this user, but not everyone posts in same exact way and 2-4 minutes gaps between posts doesn't means that it took few minutes to write post. I often open multiple tabs with different topics and it can take 30 minutes or 1 hours to write these few posts, but I can publish all these posts at once. On paper it would be considered as burst posting.

[ObaLabsX]

Long live Buwaytress!
https://talkimg.com/images/2026/08/11/U4ZKwN.png

Seeing that the system of rules is beginning to shift, maybe this forum will gradually become a forum owned by North Korea.


LabsX

[dkbit98]

Look I am all for having a bit more strict rules in forum, but I don't think we should ban signatures for everyone left and right.
I think there is a cleat difference between obvious spammer and someone who is active mostly in gambling board.
It would be better to first post a warning or announcement in this topic for specific member before initiating ban on his signature.
This should be better than later dealing with bringing back signatures.

[joker_josue]

That's because I have a way of doing things. I usually take quotes from different threads and put them all in Word document. Then, I take a whole day to write replies on the document. The same process is done when I make my own threads. When the time comes for posting, I just copy what I had written on Word and place it on the forums. Honestly, I didn't think an interval of 2-4 mins between posts would be much of an issue. Perhaps, I've missed that part somewhere in the forum rules (burst posting), and for that, I sincerely apologize. One thing about me is that when I make a mistake, I don't repeat it again.

Thanks for explaining the reason for the ban, btw. I respect your decision. If I get another chance, I promise to do better. I will continue to remain active on the forums. Peace.

I happened to take the time to check your posting schedule. Now I'm curious.

You copy the posts you want to reply to onto a Word document. Then you set aside some time to reply to all of them. Next, you go to the forum and paste all the replies you want to give. Did I understand correctly?

But if that's the case, explain something to me: if you say it might take you a day to respond, what guarantees that when you finally respond the topic won't have progressed and your answer will still be valid?

The forum is dynamic; in just a few minutes, dozens of posts can appear in a single topic. Your post, created 3 hours ago, may have become irrelevant a long time ago.

Another thing I noticed is that you open new topics, but you rarely reply to them. Do you usually follow the topics you open?

Note: I only analyzed the last 30 days, so I may have misunderstood everything. I apologize in advance. But I would like to better understand your dynamics, that's all.

buwaytress was marked as biased. The guy is a champion of men, for fuck sakes. If somebody says buwaytress is biased, I say that the biased one is the guy that's saying that - without even knowing the guy.

I just wanted to comment that @buwaytress is one of the nicest guys I know and strives to be fair to everyone. Even when he's wrong (because we all make mistakes), he's not afraid to admit it. Logically, he's human and we all have tastes, so we may appreciate some more than others. In any case, I've never seen him be unfair.

I've been following @arallmuus case from the outside, so I haven't formed an opinion on it yet. But at least he's doing what he's supposed to do correctly: appeal.

That's what the appeals section is for: to present arguments for the community to analyze and give their opinion. But appeals have to be well done; it's not enough to just say, "I think the ban was unfair, can you review it?" That's something @arallmuus didn't do; he was clear in his appeal and is taking the right steps. In my opinion, he's already an example to follow.

Unblocking a signature should be a quick process. No need to add drama out of thin air.

In addition to @icopress's suggestion, I would add that @nutildah could create a pre-ban team to conduct a cleaner analysis without using his own tools.



Ultimately, I think we all have to look at this new possibility of sigban as a new process, in which we are all learning.

Both @nutildah is learning to improve his analysis, and the entire community that cares is learning to deal with this and help in whatever way is needed, for the good of the forum.

Therefore, I think this process is in its early stages, and this is part of the growing pains.
We are all fine-tuning our analysis to gradually make it easier to analyze both the bans and the appeals.

I believe it's not necessary to attack and criticize everything and everyone, the system and those managing it. Instead, we should adopt a constructive attitude and help it grow, so that any mistakes can be minimized gradually.

Together, we can improve the forum. I believe it's possible. 

[PrivacyG]

In the last year I managed to get 52 merits in Gambling Discussion with 195 posts. arallmuus got 33 with 1071 posts. Therefore, merits are not impossible to get there.

My opinion.  How easy it is for your self to get Merits versus someone else is not a good indicator to consider in the investigation when your own name is as well known and with this level of power.  I personally know very well that some times I am only being sent a Merit or two by a less known user only because I am more well known than the other person and there fore have 'the louder voice'.

Anyway.  The Gambling Board is particularly difficult to earn Merits on and once again I do not believe it is necessarily a problem.  I would rather see more Merits shared in Boards such as Development, Bitcoin Discussion et cetera instead, where Bitcoin related discussions take place.

But over all, I do not even know if Merits are worth considering at all in a pre ban investigation.  Different Boards have different levels of difficulty when it comes to earning Merits.  For example.  While gamblers barely earn any if at all even for really interesting and quality replies on the Gambling Board, on the Wall Observer Topic you see replies like these getting 3 Merits each,

https://x.com/pete_rizzo_/status/2086249068238381540?s=46

buddy, bob c ,buddy, buddy

Phil

I removed the names in the quotes to not offend or start any unnecessary drama because the point is not that I have a problem with any of these.  It is the Wall Observer after all and that place is very fun.  My point is,

We all know Merits are not being used the way they are supposed to be used.  Hell.  I probably rarely use mine in the right way either, but this has been normal ever since I started lurking around Bitcoin Talk.  I do not believe it is difficult for a new account to progress and earn Merits but I do believe the most popular people here earn Merits a LOT easier than the rest do.  Even when both accounts post a reply of similar level of quality.

There fore.  I do not think arallmuus can be compared or judged strictly or mainly by Merits because how do you even do that when there is such a big difference in how Merits are distributed around Boards.

[nutildah]

There fore.  I do not think arallmuus can be compared or judged strictly or mainly by Merits because how do you even do that when there is such a big difference in how Merits are distributed around Boards.

He's not being judged strictly by merits, and I never said that he was. Furthermore, I don't compare my personal earned merits with others for the sake of issuing sigbans. All decisions are made keeping relative board averages in mind, and are never based on one thing alone.

You guys are being too impatient and making too many wrong assumptions. I'm not going to respond to each and every one of them. I understand the opaqueness of things is responsible for this but it would simply be unwise to reveal the information to too many parties.

Instead, please have some respect for the appeal process, which is currently underway. I intend to use the results to make improvements. Thank you for your patience.

[Sing In A Band]

Do you get paid for each signature ban issued, or is it just a flat monthly paycheck regardless?

[Abiky]

I happened to take the time to check your posting schedule. Now I'm curious.

You copy the posts you want to reply to onto a Word document. Then you set aside some time to reply to all of them. Next, you go to the forum and paste all the replies you want to give. Did I understand correctly?

But if that's the case, explain something to me: if you say it might take you a day to respond, what guarantees that when you finally respond the topic won't have progressed and your answer will still be valid?

The forum is dynamic; in just a few minutes, dozens of posts can appear in a single topic. Your post, created 3 hours ago, may have become irrelevant a long time ago.

Another thing I noticed is that you open new topics, but you rarely reply to them. Do you usually follow the topics you open?

Note: I only analyzed the last 30 days, so I may have misunderstood everything. I apologize in advance. But I would like to better understand your dynamics, that's all.

Yes. That's how I do it, even though there's a little more to it than just copying posts right into Word and then dumping a bunch of replies later on the forums.

If there are a few posts that I want to reply to, sometimes I copy them into Word and work on the replies whenever I have spare time. For me, it's easier this way, especially when I want to give a post some thought instead of trying to come up with an immediate response.

As for the discussion moving on while I'm doing that, yes, it's definitely something that can happen. The BitcoinTalk forums sometimes moves quickly. If a few posts appear by the time I'm ready to make a reply, I'll read through them and determine whenever my reply still makes sense. If in the meantime something happens that changes the discussion, I'll adjust my response accordingly. And if I feel that what I originally wanted to say is no longer relevant, I won't necessarily post it.

So when I say it could take me a day to reply, that doesn't mean I'm writing a response in isolation for a whole day and then posting it regardless of what happened in the meantime. It's more that I don't always have the time available to reply when I first see something.

As for topic discussion, I guess you raise a good point. My topics aren't always the ones I stick with. If I make a subject because I have something to say or a question that I want the community to help me with and the discussion ends up on a subject where I can actually contribute, I will be a part of it again. On the other hand, if people are making the thread into something where my opinion wouldn't be of much help, I usually don't interfere.

Your comment about my general ways of posting is mostly spot on. But I don't think of myself as someone who is simply gathering my posts and then mechanically putting the same answers.

One​‍​‌‍​‍‌ thing I admit to regularly doing is reading what goes wrong in a discussion thread before actually posting my response. This is simply to make sure that I would still stand for saying my piece even if the discussion had gone against me. After all, it's only worth the effort if my comment is still ​‍​‌‍​‍‌relevant.

[joker_josue]

Your comment about my general ways of posting is mostly spot on. But I don't think of myself as someone who is simply gathering my posts and then mechanically putting the same answers.

One​‍​‌‍​‍‌ thing I admit to regularly doing is reading what goes wrong in a discussion thread before actually posting my response. This is simply to make sure that I would still stand for saying my piece even if the discussion had gone against me. After all, it's only worth the effort if my comment is still ​‍​‌‍​‍‌relevant.

I think you have three times more work to do all this than to leave topics unread for when you have more time.

Here's a tip: you can use the Watchlist function in your profile to keep a list of topics you haven't read yet. This way, you'll never fall behind on a conversation. On this page, click the "new" button, and you will be taken directly to the first post you were waiting to read.

Copying a post, taking it to Word, drafting a response, coming back hours later, adjusting that response to the new posts—it's really time-consuming.

This is just advice from someone who posts a lot. 

Furthermore, when creating a topic, remember that the topic is yours. Regardless of the direction the conversation takes, if you find the topic relevant to be discussed in the forum, participate in the conversation. The topic is yours; you will certainly always have something more to say.

On the other hand, I didn't analyze the content of your posts in detail, but I noticed some patterns. When you start using too many patterns, it starts to sound less natural (even if it's not like that).

Here are some tips.

[PrivacyG]

He's not being judged strictly by merits, and I never said that he was. Furthermore, I don't compare my personal earned merits with others for the sake of issuing sigbans. All decisions are made keeping relative board averages in mind, and are never based on one thing alone.

You guys are being too impatient and making too many wrong assumptions. I'm not going to respond to each and every one of them. I understand the opaqueness of things is responsible for this but it would simply be unwise to reveal the information to too many parties.

Instead, please have some respect for the appeal process, which is currently underway. I intend to use the results to make improvements. Thank you for your patience.

My assumption was that Merits was a big part of the judgement, not strictly the reason for the ban, and it came from the focus on Merits in previous exchanges between you two on his ban appeal.

But my message comes with a good intention of offering my own perspective and I am sure most of the other responses have good intentions too.  I am hoping mine is not received with a bad perception, it is only what I see from my vague end.  I understand your end is a different story, you know all the investigation in detail and best after all.

I believe multiple perspectives are important and help shape this process better in time.  Some of them will obviously end up being only useless ideas to ignore.  Maybe even mine.

It has been said multiple times here that the idea is great and it really is.  I personally at least do trust your judgement so I am good with you being in charge.  I do believe this initiative can and will be for the better of Bitcoin Talk in the end.  I wonder however if keeping ban related information secret is going to really help or make things worse in time.  It did look like it helps and I even under lined that it does before but after this first 'controversial' ban I am thinking things might change a little bit after the next two or three bans that the community sees as unjustified or unfair.

My thought is that some people will grow the feeling that one person has the power handle to attack anyone with no real justification if only mostly vague details are offered when they are being asked for.  How this particular issue can be handled in the longer term with out having to offer at least most of the details, I do not know.  It will probably have to do with who the people are that can share a 'third opinion'.  Or.  The pre ban team suggested replies before me.  By us pointing out what we see on our end however, I can only assume you will be able to shape a much more robust process that will avoid this situation in the future.

Anyway.  I am sure the right way to do this will be found.  Now I am going to retreat again from this Topic as I already shared my neutral opinions so I am probably of no help any more.  Not that I am very sure my opinions are of any help in the first place.  I am really curious to see the progress of this case.

[Revolution2025]

i made a clear warning that this whole thing will soon turn into a witch-hunt but i am too small to give an opinion

only a coward will sigban an account of a user who has spent over 10 years in the forum, what an audacity  

in the same vein that you all interceded for the arallmuus user, you can as well review other users who frequently makes post in the gambling board without shitposting or spamming but received a sigban from nutildah because it is evident that gambling board posters are the main target of this sigban

theymos must have taken the wrong decision unknowingly  

APART FROM THOSE WHO ARE WITHIN THE RANK TO EARN FROM A SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO JOIN AND EARN, EVERY OTHER PERSON THAT IS PUTTING ON A SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN ADS IS HERE TO EARN

IT WILL BE STUPID TO SIGBAN A USER BECAUSE THEY MAKE POSTS SOLELY TO COMPLETE SIGNATURES CAMPAIGN QUOTA AND EARN

THERE ARE MANY PLATFORMS ON THE INTERNET AND IN THIS DIGITAL AGE A LOT OF THEM PAY USERS ON THOSE PLATFORMS

HOW MUCH IS THE HIGHEST AMOUNT THAT A SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN COMPANY PAYS THE HIGHEST RANK, IT'S NOT EVEN UP TO $200 WHICH IS JUST A LITTLE TOKEN FOR THOSE IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

SOCIAL MEDIA PAYS MORE IF YOU HAVE MANY FOLLOWERS, EVEN IF YOU CREATE MEANINGLESS CONTENTS THERE ARE THOSE WHO WILL ENGAGE IN YOUR CONTENTS AND YOU WILL GET PAID

IF THIS FORUM IS MAKING IT TOO DIFFICULT FOR MAJORITY OF USERS, IT IS TIME TO FLEE AND LEAVE THE FORUM

WITH TIME IT WILL DIE A NATURAL DEATH

THEYMOS SAID HE DOESN'T WANT TO MAKE THE FORUM STRICTER BUT THAT IT WAS ALL LIES

IN A SANE FORUM, THE ADMINISTRATOR WILL NEVER APPOINT ONE PERSON TO TAKE CHARGE OF SIGBANNING ACCOUNTS BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT IT WILL BE BIASED

SHITPOSTING, SPAMMING AND LOW QUALITY POSTS ARE WORTHY OF A TEMP/SIG BAN

BUT BANNING USERS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE EARNING FROM A SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN IS WITCHCRAFT

THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WEARING A COMPANY'S SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN ADS AND KICKING AGAINST THOSE EARNING JUST LIKE YOU, ARE ALL HYPOCRITES

[Numan467]

There fore.  I do not think arallmuus can be compared or judged strictly or mainly by Merits because how do you even do that when there is such a big difference in how Merits are distributed around Boards.

He's not being judged strictly by merits, and I never said that he was. Furthermore, I don't compare my personal earned merits with others for the sake of issuing sigbans. All decisions are made keeping relative board averages in mind, and are never based on one thing alone.

You guys are being too impatient and making too many wrong assumptions. I'm not going to respond to each and every one of them. I understand the opaqueness of things is responsible for this but it would simply be unwise to reveal the information to too many parties.

Instead, please have some respect for the appeal process, which is currently underway. I intend to use the results to make improvements. Thank you for your patience.

I have already said before that this person is stubborn to the extreme.

He will never admit that he made a mistake; he only abuses his power. Now, when everyone is asking him to reconsider his decision, instead of accepting it, he is even rejecting the advice of senior members.

This is because he is stubborn and selfcentered, he believes that whatever he did was right and everyone else is wrong.

He must have held a personal grudge over some old post because that is just who he is. Even though I am new here, I have come to understand his true nature very well.

[JayJuanGee]

There is always a manual review in the process. I've mentioned this several times.

Are you open to the community having a committee that reviews the process, independent of you?
That means without you providing them any reason for the ban or your thought process that led to it. They just review the account and decide if its deserving of a ban or not. This can be in a different (self moderated) thread and ALL banned users can have a format to appeal there to keep it tidy.

If there was such a 'commitee' would you agree to abide by the decision they reach on an account that's banned even if it's different from your original action?

Even with a neutral committee, if such a thing were to be possible in practice, each side has an opportunity to present their case.. not necessarily in ex-parte ways.  The process should be mostly open and transparent so each side sees what the other side sees from the presentation of the evidence and then the neutral committee decides on the submitted evidence and/or any other information it deems relevant, such as forum rules, culture and/or goals.

[Upgrade00]

<snip>

My reasoning is that accounts that are deserving of signature bans should be so clear to experienced members here that you do not need any extra information besides about 5 pages of their post history.
I believe the aim of this operation is to weed the forum of the leeches that spam offering nothing back to the community, those are very easy to spot. If we need to do extra analysis and consider the reasoning that led to the ban action or why a user posts the way they do, is that user really deserving of a ban?

This is why I really don't understand the conversation about a closely guarded 'playbook' used to judge users. The underlying factor that helps improve the forum is users putting in an effort, the end product of this will be different cause of different knowledge levels, but any user putting in an effort should hardly cause you to wince while reading their posts even if it's of zero interest to you.
Maybe I'm wrong on this or I'm wrong on the aim of it all.

[Xiestar]

<snip>

My reasoning is that accounts that are deserving of signature bans should be so clear to experienced members here that you do not need any extra information besides about 5 pages of their post history.
I believe the aim of this operation is to weed the forum of the leeches that spam offering nothing back to the community, those are very easy to spot. If we need to do extra analysis and consider the reasoning that led to the ban action or why a user posts the way they do, is that user really deserving of a ban?

This is why I really don't understand the conversation about a closely guarded 'playbook' used to judge users. The underlying factor that helps improve the forum is users putting in an effort, the end product of this will be different cause of different knowledge levels, but any user putting in an effort should hardly cause you to wince while reading their posts even if it's of zero interest to you.
Maybe I'm wrong on this or I'm wrong on the aim of it all.

You are over complicating everything with this nonsense creating a better forum using the context of signature ban.

The main question is why campaign manager hire them and paid their post if the user post was considered as spam? Do you think campaign manager are dumb enough to not distinguish spam to a constructive post before paying them?

By completely agreeing to this overall signature ban, it means you believe that all campaign manager that enrolled ban user are at fault here too for accepting and paying spammers because these user will not post to spam if not being paid. Let’s stop being an ass licker and deal the reality.

Why is the forum needs someone to interfere on signature campaign while it has its own manager responsible on the user they are hiring. They can easily kick out all the user involved without drama. As if this user will keep spamming if they are not enrolled on campaign. Best example is Satofan44. Kick him on campaign and let’s see if he will still be active talking shit in the forum all day long.

[slaman29]

I never thought I would be commenting in this section either but since I saw my name being mentioned, I just want to say a few things.

> I support all efforts to clean much needed spammers. I But these users are so obvious you don't need any tool to tell, I agree with @Upgrade00, it should be super obvious to anybody looking at a few pages of post history.

> I saw my profile on the tool and was honestly a bit surprised to see me ranked in bottom 10-25% of posters. I know for sure I'm not as good as the seniors. But I have in my post history definitely called out shitposters in gambling and reported them and hoped their campaign manager saw it. Little did I know I was also considered a low quality poster lol. And it says I need to make more varied topics BUT I am in Gambling a particular fan of 1 club and 1 national team. In trading I do DCA. It is 100% correct to say my content is gonna be always about them. So what should I follow the advice of the tool and post in more various topics I don't like or know, to improve my ranking? Is this making me better quality poster? Most important, is this gonna be helping the forum?

> I took years to improve my English and still takes me time to check my posts to improve. In fact in Gambling thread itself is where I met really good users like @buwaytress and @LFC_Bitcoin and @Trofo and @cryptofrka (surprise! none of these guys are mods) who actually gave advice over the years on how to improve posts and contributions. And these guys are really nice, even when I was an actual shitposter probably years and years ago they were kind and helpful and never looked down on people. I watched them now for 5+ years and they have helped to create a very pleasant mini environment in gambling, away from the shitposters. If anybody asked any of us, I guarantee we gambling users would all recommend one of them to be involved in the process. It is so illogical not to consult actual gambling section seniors in the first place

The right decision with @arallmuus case is so obvious and many seniors already pointed out. IMO please you can take time to improve the tool or process but you need 1 second to correct a mistake.

[nutildah]

The appeal for arallmuus has been completed and I reversed the sigban.

Thanks to Rikafip for volunteering his time. What I learned was that there are other measures of post value that I was failing to take into account, and that was my mistake. I will be more careful and take this possibility into consideration before issuing any future sigbans.

[Hhampuz]

[Cointikka]

The appeal for arallmuus has been completed and I reversed the sigban.

Thanks to Rikafip for volunteering his time. What I learned was that there are other measures of post value that I was failing to take into account, and that was my mistake. I will be more careful and take this possibility into consideration before issuing any future sigbans.

You have bowed down to pressure! This is likely to happen when you do not roll out the tool for testing. I have checked and spent time evaluating your tool's efficiency. It is good, but the deciding factor of merits received by anyone is not a good criterion. Next, targeting a particular board is not a good solution. You and the admin are good at understanding what I want to convey, as I do have tools that do those evaluations.

Edit:
I think this is the right time for you and the admin to stop using this tool and work on creating ultimate answers to spam in the guise of posting in the Signature campaign. Your tool is not the solution; the solution is creating a tool that identifies user habits and posting habits. Looks like you will need an AI to do it.