Appeal in the Sigban Case

[snipie]

@stompix: what's stopping me? I already answered that several times.

You can try once more, after all, what are you going to do around here?
This was supposed to be a discussion forum, not go search my previous post forum

I know you long time ago, don't take a side blindly to join the fake temporarily elite.

Oh no....please tell me I didn't join the reptilian brotherhood! Is this the reason my ass is itching?

No. It is up to you to do some efforts. What's the difference between you and the other persons in the gambling discussion talking over and over about Messi being the best and retiring, Cristiano Ronaldo getting married and other repetitive stuff.
You are free to follow blindly or not anything you want. Just keep your mind open. Peace.

[cryptofrka]

This is the guy that's evaluating our posts and judging us accordingly.
Maybe, just maybe, his tool is a piece of crap.





I really don't understand anybody that's supporting this.
I was going through members applying for the Sportsbet campaign - one of the best paying ones on the forum as we speak.

I tried to use this tool a bit and saw literal shitposters, the worst of their kind, that have ZERO value to the client being rated as the elite 10% just because they are posting early in the most meaningless threads you can imagine.

I would write more if I thought it would have any meaning but I know it won't. GG nutildah, once again.

___________________________

For anybody reading this - why can't signature campaigns on Bitcointalk be treated as a job?
This job is paid by clients, that pay signature campaign members to select members that they think represent the brand best.

So, for you it is not ok for clients to pay that, but it is ok for all of us to pay nutildah for using this shitty piece of poorly written software?

This is my last post on this topic, whoever quotes - don't bother. I won't be replying, I'll juist distruist nutildah and be done with it.

[Free Market Capitalist]

For anybody reading this - why can't signature campaigns on Bitcointalk be treated as a job?
This job is paid by clients, that pay signature campaign members to select members that they think represent the brand best.

...

This is my last post on this topic, whoever quotes - don't bother. I won't be replying, I'll juist distruist nutildah and be done with it.

I know you said you weren't going to reply to this thread anymore, but I'd really like to comment on this. I was just talking about it yesterday. I think it's great that there are signature campaigns on this forum. And like you, I also see it as a business matter. Advertisers are looking for exposure, and participants are looking for a reward for taking part in the campaign—it’s a win-win for both sides.

Although it’s true that, from the forum’s perspective, certain limits need to be set on this, since some advertisers don’t care about quality at all, and we can’t let this turn into a forum where most of what’s posted is nonsense—which seems to have been the case, especially before the merit system was introduced.

I'm not going to go into too much detail about nutildah's work. I think he’s done some good things, but based on what I’ve seen, I wonder if he might have made some mistakes—which, in some cases, he’s corrected. But the main point is that it was theymos who gave him the power to do so, which means he probably wasn’t very happy with some of the posting styles on the forum either, as can be seen in the graphs posted on the previous page, which show robotic posting patterns.

[TryNinja]

This is the guy that's evaluating our posts and judging us accordingly.
Maybe, just maybe, his tool is a piece of crap.

https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/20/UqKZNN.jpg
https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/20/UqKGPT.jpg
https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/20/UqKAiw.jpg

I really don't understand anybody that's supporting this.
I was going through members applying for the Sportsbet campaign - one of the best paying ones on the forum as we speak.

I tried to use this tool a bit and saw literal shitposters, the worst of their kind, that have ZERO value to the client being rated as the elite 10% just because they are posting early in the most meaningless threads you can imagine.

Maybe you missed this:

I needed to tack on one more summary of issues to this thread before once again locking it.

First, in the time since this thread was opened, I started receiving payment for sigban work. It feels weird not to mention it, but also weird to open a new thread just to say it, so I'm mentioning it here.

Here are some general points that need addressing or re-addressing:

• Every sigban is issued only after a thorough manual review. There is no way to automatically trigger a sigban.
  
• Sigbans are never issued for a single weakness or potential weakness. They are the result of an account's consistent, perpetual underperformance in terms of general forum expectations.
• The appeals process will remain as is (granted at my discretion) and accounts seeking to appeal should open their own appeal topic in Meta. This way each case can have a more focused discussion.
• Its impossible for anyone to have intimate familiarity with every board, which is why community input is crucial to the development of this process. If you value the contributions of a sigbanned user, don't be shy to let your opinions be known in their appeal thread. I do appreciate it if you can do so respectfully.
• The case of arallmuus should demonstrate that I am willing to be reasonable. I made an incorrect assessment about the value of this user's posts. The humility in the defense of this user expressed by a few independent voices was what helped me realize this.
• That said, community pressure will only work in cases where I don't strongly believe a user produces more noise than signal. If I think the same conclusion could be made by reasonable people, the sigban will remain.
• Sigbans are reversible by an admin or global moderator, who are monitoring the progress of this new process. If you truly believe you have been wronged, they can overturn the sigban.

(Red emphasis is mine)

TLDR: His tool giving a good or bad score isn't going to ban/save anyone.

For anybody reading this - why can't signature campaigns on Bitcointalk be treated as a job?
This job is paid by clients, that pay signature campaign members to select members that they think represent the brand best.

As someone who likes gambling, I can tell you that it's very difficult for me to use the gambling board in its current state because it's such a shitshow.

I honestly think the problem lies on the 99% of the sigbanned users (and more to come) that participated there. For that reason, I am supportive of nutildah's current approach and I wish he bans even more people. Maybe one day I will have some joy participating there.

When I had to make some gambling posts (because of a signature campaign requirement), I would spend 5x more time trying to find good/okay-ish stuff to post that is not "wow real madrid made 3 goals today, great game". There's just a lot of noise and no way to have a real conversation.

And FYI, I defended your paid pools before (when arallmuus got sigbanned) since I believe they consist of good gamblers, so I'm not against you and your friends. Other than that, 90% of the board is a waste of MBs and I can't understand how anyone would think otherwise.

There's no need for you to reply to this anyways, I'm just giving context to those reading and why I don't agree with you disagreeing.

[snipie]

This is the guy that's evaluating our posts and judging us accordingly.
Maybe, just maybe, his tool is a piece of crap.

https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/20/UqKZNN.jpg
https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/20/UqKGPT.jpg
https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/20/UqKAiw.jpg

I really don't understand anybody that's supporting this.
I was going through members applying for the Sportsbet campaign - one of the best paying ones on the forum as we speak.

I tried to use this tool a bit and saw literal shitposters, the worst of their kind, that have ZERO value to the client being rated as the elite 10% just because they are posting early in the most meaningless threads you can imagine.

Maybe you missed this:

I needed to tack on one more summary of issues to this thread before once again locking it.

First, in the time since this thread was opened, I started receiving payment for sigban work. It feels weird not to mention it, but also weird to open a new thread just to say it, so I'm mentioning it here.

Here are some general points that need addressing or re-addressing:

• Every sigban is issued only after a thorough manual review. There is no way to automatically trigger a sigban.
  
• Sigbans are never issued for a single weakness or potential weakness. They are the result of an account's consistent, perpetual underperformance in terms of general forum expectations.
• The appeals process will remain as is (granted at my discretion) and accounts seeking to appeal should open their own appeal topic in Meta. This way each case can have a more focused discussion.
• Its impossible for anyone to have intimate familiarity with every board, which is why community input is crucial to the development of this process. If you value the contributions of a sigbanned user, don't be shy to let your opinions be known in their appeal thread. I do appreciate it if you can do so respectfully.
• The case of arallmuus should demonstrate that I am willing to be reasonable. I made an incorrect assessment about the value of this user's posts. The humility in the defense of this user expressed by a few independent voices was what helped me realize this.
• That said, community pressure will only work in cases where I don't strongly believe a user produces more noise than signal. If I think the same conclusion could be made by reasonable people, the sigban will remain.
• Sigbans are reversible by an admin or global moderator, who are monitoring the progress of this new process. If you truly believe you have been wronged, they can overturn the sigban.

TLDR: His tool giving a good or bad score isn't going to ban/save anyone.

For anybody reading this - why can't signature campaigns on Bitcointalk be treated as a job?
This job is paid by clients, that pay signature campaign members to select members that they think represent the brand best.

As someone who likes gambling, I can tell you that it's very difficult for me to use the gambling board in its current state because it's such a shitshow.

I honestly think the problem lies on the 99% of the sigbanned users (and more to come) that participated there. For that reason, I am supportive of nutildah's current approach and I wish he bans even more people. Maybe one day I will have some joy participating there.

And FYI, I defended your paid pools before (when arallmuus got sigbanned) since I believe they consist of good gamblers, so I'm not against you and your friends. Other than that, 90% of the board is a waste of MBs and I can't understand how anyone would think otherwise.

Theymos created two nice places in this forum where people can talk whatever they want and they are spam free and signature free. You have to just open an ivory topic there and RIP it in silence.
After all I understand your feelings like I understand the need to stop WW2 at that time but the utilities to stop it are different.

[cryptofrka]

As someone who likes gambling, I can tell you that it's very difficult for me to use the gambling board in its current state because it's such a shitshow.

I honestly think the problem lies on the 99% of the sigbanned users (and more to come) that participated there. For that reason, I am supportive of nutildah's current approach and I wish he bans even more people. Maybe one day I will have some joy participating there.

And FYI, I defended your paid pools before (when arallmuus got sigbanned) since I believe they consist of good gamblers, so I'm not against you and your friends. Other than that, 90% of the board is a waste of MBs and I can't understand how anyone would think otherwise.

I knew I said I wouldn't, I have to due to the fact that most people that see us complaining think that we like how gambling looks like.
We don't, and trust me - it hurts us more than it hurts most of you - we spend most of our time there.

_________________________

First of all - if he created the tool, it means he's using the tool - no matter what he says. I just want to open people's eyes to the fact that the tool is terrible.
I know it is - because I tried to use it as a gauge when filling Sportsbet's signature campaign. I took a guy that is in the lowest 10% ahead of guys that are in his top 10% and I know it's the right call for my client.

I hate the fact that a guy that is literally clueless both about sports and gambling boards in general partly interferes with how I do my job.

_________________________

Now - let's move on to gambling.
I wholeheartedly agree that Gambling in its current state is terrible. No doubt about it, we tried reporting shitposters for a while and then gave up on it collectively. There is a bubble inside of it and if you don't find it, it's literally the worst place in the world.

I tried asking hillarious and cyrus for simple pins for important threads - I guess they were just too busy.

That being said - this is not the solution. nutildah will ban some people but campaigns won't stop coming. And I will never select a great Bitcoin discussion guy ahead of any decent gambling member, because the value for my client is higher there.
That is what most people can't get in their heads - clients want people that will spend their sig campaign money - not stow it away. They don't want people analyzing wallets, they want people that bet and discuss about it, even if it is simple and repetitive.

There is a way to fix the gambling boards - but nobody asked anybody respectable from the Gambling boards. This won't reduce spam, it will just make campaign managers select the users that are not yet banned - but are still shitposting about Fabregas, Como or Barcelona for the 20th time today.

Some better solutions:

- have a 'paid pools' child board in Gambling where all the serious talk will migrate instantly
- create another rating based on merits, trust, DT inclusion etc and set a (low) minimum to join a sig campaign
- hold campaign managers responsible to uphold a certain standard when launching/managing sig campaigns (not by nutildah though)
- leave it to the community instead of a hothead with a grudge - for every XY reported posts by DT1 members, a sigban is automatically applied to that member

I'm sure there are 20 better ideas. I'm all for cleaning Gambling boards, I'm just not going to clap my hands in awe because people use tools to tell me 'hey, people take this as a job'.

Well, no shit Sherlock, it is a job. Why wouldn't it be?

_________________________

I seriously hope this is the last 'nutildah' discussion I'm having. I just wanted to explain for the last time that I do feel forum needs to deal with spam.
What I'm guaranteeing - ban 500 members from Gambling and I'll still search there for my next campaign participants.

Ban them all - I'll tell my clients that sig campaign is not the best possible use of money right now and I'll suggest a sports competition.
I will still not primarily take members that don't write in gambling in a sig campaign for a gambling brand.

Gambling on BTT is a circular economy that creates hundreds of BTC transactions daily.
I'd say we're more aligned with Satoshi's ideals than the guys thoroughly analyzing BTC price, Ledger leaks or quantum dangers for the 500th time.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

As someone who likes gambling, I can tell you that it's very difficult for me to use the gambling board in its current state because it's such a shitshow.

I honestly think the problem lies on the 99% of the sigbanned users (and more to come) that participated there. For that reason, I am supportive of nutildah's current approach and I wish he bans even more people. Maybe one day I will have some joy participating there.

When I had to make some gambling posts (because of a signature campaign requirement), I would spend 5x more time trying to find good/okay-ish stuff to post that is not "wow real madrid made 3 goals today, great game". There's just a lot of noise and no way to have a real conversation.

Sure, I suppose that on the other gambling forums you’re on, the discussions are intellectual debates of the highest calibre. I’ll give you some links to the biggest Spanish-language forum. The Real Madrid v Atlético de Madrid derby is taking place today:

Día de Derbi

The OP is an NSFW photo. Here are some of the comments, translated into English:

Whores’ Day

They’ll be sodomised by a black player from Real Madrid

Wank day

Now I’m going to translate a more ‘serious’ thread for you.

Se está jugando al fútbol en Madrid?

First comments:

What a proper battle. What a pair. ‘Embarrassing’ doesn’t even begin to cover it. ‘Intensity’ – that’s what the football-illiterate lot would say, ha ha ha.

And what about you, you fatso, hahahaJxddd

You know that the usual suspects’ tactic is that they only play when they want to

This year, the only teams playing football in LaLiga are Barça, Dépor and Sevilla.

Elche move the ball around very well

Those are the 'quality' comments you can find in other forums, If we compare it to our Spanish league thread here, I’d say ours wins hands down as far as 'quality' is concerned.

[TryNinja]

Sure, I suppose that on the other gambling forums you’re on, the discussions are intellectual debates of the highest calibre. I’ll give you some links to the biggest Spanish-language forum. The Real Madrid v Atlético de Madrid derby is taking place today:

Día de Derbi

The OP is an NSFW photo. Here are some of the comments, translated into English:

~snip~

Those are the 'quality' comments you can find in other forums, If we compare it to our Spanish league thread here, I’d say ours wins hands down as far as 'quality' is concerned.

I don't see any problem with the comments from your forocoches forum. The important difference is that people are there because they like to talk about football, and there is a real community (as far as I can tell).

There is no real community in people mecanically posting 20-30 times a week like robots talking random stuff about random games. I guess, yeah, it all comes down to the fact that they are treating it as a job.

Is this wrong? Not necessarily, but right now there is a high incentive to not be part of the community, but to pretend you're discussing football while you're just filling quotas. You don't watch the games, you don't like the games, you don't care about the games. But you need to post 25 times a week so you have to somehow talk about the last Barcelona game.

They post "Wow real madrid scored 3 goals" and move on to the next topic. In between, 5 other guys come and post the same shit. If you like football and reply to them, they don't come back, they don't answer you back, they don't have a real conversation. It looks exactly like any auto-generated random noise. How can anyone actually pretend this is not the same as leaving 10 AI agents talking to each other with random AI slop? It's the Dead Internet theory all over it. That's what I see when I visit the Gambling board.

I'll say again, I checked the posts of many people who got sigbanned and I COMPLETELY agree with the ban. Most of them did exactly what I wrote above.

And somehow I didn't agree with arallmuus getting banned even though his posts weren't intellectual debates of the highest calibre, and he did get unbanned. He felt like a gambler that is having a good time with other gamblers, and I'm fine with that. But that's not what's going on 90% of that board.

Note: I'm speaking for myself. Maybe nutildah does want more intellectual debates of the highest calibre. Right now I still think he is doing a good job regardless.

I will still not primarily take members that don't write in gambling in a sig campaign for a gambling brand.

I'm not asking for any of that.

I'm all for nutildah to only ban the most extreme cases and we continue slowly from there. Ban the zombies that look like AI making content for the dead internet, and we'll see how it goes. Maybe there will be more space for the real gamblers, without all the noise.

[joker_josue]

We don't, and trust me - it hurts us more than it hurts most of you - we spend most of our time there.

~~

What I'm guaranteeing - ban 500 members from Gambling and I'll still search there for my next campaign participants.

cryptofrka, you know I'm familiar with your work in the betting section, and you do an amazing job.

As you yourself say, you spend most of your time there, and that's fine. Therefore, you don't need third-party tools to assess which users generate better debate or not.

That tool, whose criteria we don't fully understand but which will only provide statistical data, serves only as a signal for later analysis. It should not be viewed as a method of evaluating whether or not a user should be part of a campaign.

Choose those who truly engage with the conversations and bring something to the discussion, as you know and enjoy.

If someone gets banned or has a sigban, for whatever reason, it's not your fault. Furthermore, I believe you will carefully monitor all participants, and when you see that someone is acting like a robot, you will take action and look for an alternative.

In the midst of this whole process, which may have some flaws (after all, it's only been a month, it would be difficult to get it right from the start), out of the 200 banned users, how many do you think were actually useful? I don't want names, just a number. I believe you know that most of them didn't bring any value.

Anyway, you don't need to answer me. I don't want your answer. But I believe you'll be stuck with a number very close to 5%.

Now, if you say that a different approach could have been taken, that's fine. More dialogue would be a plus. But it was a shocking entry, perhaps to make a statement, and now something clearer and more viable should come.

[nutildah]

No matter how many times I state that none of this process is automated and it is all manual, it doesn't matter to some people. cryptofrka set up a nice straw man, and beating the hell out of it makes him feel righteous. Hurling insults and anger is one thing, but continuing to mischaracterize something after you've been informed that's not how it works is not behavior that I can work with. Its disappointing cryptofrka is not interested in working to find a middle ground.

Now, if you say that a different approach could have been taken, that's fine. More dialogue would be a plus. But it was a shocking entry, perhaps to make a statement, and now something clearer and more viable should come.

I am much more likely to consider making changes to what I'm doing if someone can simply explain why its wrong without having to get defensive and personal about it. I'd like to encourage more actual dialogue. The pointless personal attacks will never amount to more than a setback.

[cryptofrka]

No matter how many times I state that none of this process is automated and it is all manual, it doesn't matter to some people. cryptofrka set up a nice straw man, and beating the hell out of it makes him feel righteous. Hurling insults and anger is fine, but continuing to mischaracterize something after you've been informed that's not how it works is not behavior that I can work with. Its disappointing cryptofrka is not interested in working to find a middle ground.

Don't twist it, man. I offered help many times. I don't even know if I can help though, but I'm willing to give it a shot.
My DM's are open, my TG is available, we can speak whenever. You'll see I'm a normal, solutions-oriented guy. This is not a dick measuring contest and I don't have you personally in my crosshairs. Your current position? That I do - and I think that is justified.

You have a tool that in its current state doesn't work properly. Of course I will beat the hell out of it, not because I feel righteous but because a lot of people will use it to gather conclusions from it.
I initially planned to use it to help me select a few members for the campaign - and I would have gotten the wrong ones if I trusted it.
If it's a broken tool, then put it offline while you work on it and still have your process. Don't put it out there with a 'this is how you improve' tag.

...
In the midst of this whole process, which may have some flaws (after all, it's only been a month, it would be difficult to get it right from the start), out of the 200 banned users, how many do you think were actually useful? I don't want names, just a number. I believe you know that most of them didn't bring any value.
...

No idea man, I assume most of the banned ones truly deserve it. I'm not against sigbans per se - I said it many times.
I don't want to discuss this individually - I didn't even in arallmusses case. I spoke in general, and I think a much broader discussion/set of rules is needed if we truly want to deal with spam on BTT.

Now, if you say that a different approach could have been taken, that's fine. More dialogue would be a plus. But it was a shocking entry, perhaps to make a statement, and now something clearer and more viable should come.

I just said/proved that the tool sucks. Not sure what part of that is so offensive?

[Upgrade00]

That tool, whose criteria we don't fully understand but which will only provide statistical data, serves only as a signal for later analysis. It should not be viewed as a method of evaluating whether or not a user should be part of a campaign.

Firstly, why is there so much mystery about what is used to judge spam here.
Also, if the signal or trigger for a ban consideration is flawed, does that not suggest the rest of the analysis could be? The tool is using criteria that are obviously considered when banning, it is not an alien part that is of no importance.

In the midst of this whole process, which may have some flaws (after all, it's only been a month, it would be difficult to get it right from the start), out of the 200 banned users, how many do you think were actually useful? I don't want names, just a number. I believe you know that most of them didn't bring any value.

The point I think, which I also agree with is not about if the bans are correct, but what the target of the approach is.

There are so many spammers on the forum that with a randomly thrown net into dense areas you will catch over 90% of such, but it does not look like this solving spam or aimed at doing so. I don't see an end goal here where you turn the gambling section or any other section into the higher quality hub some think of it.

A big part of what we see here is how gambling conversations work most of the time everywhere; People talk about sports.
It is the only repetitive event related to gambling along with bets that are played. Other quality discussion has pretty much already been had. If you want to find out any important info about provable fairness and how to calculate it, what gambling licenses you should trust or how to select a casino to play at. Do a search in that section and you will get a valid answer. But that is not a viable conversation that can be had everyday as the actual sports events are. And importantly, people are emotionally invested in those sport events.
 
If our aim is to stiffle that section and possibly close all signature channels along with the traffic and economic contribution of it, we are on the right path. But if we want to get the actual worst out and keep spam away there are other strategies to deploy which requires involving people that are familiar with the gambling section, or any other one with a lot of spam. It's not peculiar to gambling after all.

[Mahiyammahi]

A big part of what we see here is how gambling conversations work most of the time everywhere; People talk about sports.
It is the only repetitive event related to gambling along with bets that are played. Other quality discussion has pretty much already been had. If you want to find out any important info about provable fairness and how to calculate it, what gambling licenses you should trust or how to select a casino to play at. Do a search in that section and you will get a valid answer. But that is not a viable conversation that can be had everyday as the actual sports events are. And importantly, people are emotionally invested in those sport events.

Lol it's freaking true. As a gmabler I would say Real Madrid sucks todays game and my bets wasted. We're not analyst to analyze how they played and how they should rather what we saw and what happened with us this is the ideal conversation among us.

When I asks my friends how about todays match what's he's result on gambling he do not answer why he lost or win he just answer straight. Cause we're not analyst. The ideal conversation is express our feeling and either we win or lost.
It's not a rocket science we need to study to go to mars lol, this whole thing we made complicated , now it's time for Gambling.

Let everyone enjoy what they are capable of do not enforce anything.

[nutildah]

You have a tool that in its current state doesn't work properly. Of course I will beat the hell out of it, not because I feel righteous but because a lot of people will use it to gather conclusions from it.
I initially planned to use it to help me select a few members for the campaign - and I would have gotten the wrong ones if I trusted it.
If it's a broken tool, then put it offline while you work on it and still have your process. Don't put it out there with a 'this is how you improve' tag.

Alright let's start here. There's a lot to unpack already, stop me if I got something wrong:

What I gather is you think the tool doesn't work properly because it didn't give you the results you expected as far as selecting campaign participants is concerned. Rather than assuming the tool is broken, I suggest considering the possibility that our goals and expectations are different. Additionally, the tool wasn't made to do what you are using it for. As I said at the beginning:

- The system was not developed to measure how good a poster's posts are, but rather how not good they are. So long as you are in that middle 50% or higher, you are fine, unless you are using AI to write your posts for you, or are breaking other forum rules, in which case all bets are off.

The tool is generous in awarding points, which is why some posters considered to be low value can still get high scores. The bar is low in this regard. However, the score is just a guide -- its not the final arbiter of whether or not a sigban is applied. That is a decision 100% made and executed by myself.

I did work myself into a weird bind where some user scores show middle 50% even though they are clearly low-value posters, and I'd feel bad rugging them of their signature after creating the impression that their posts are OK. IMO that's the biggest mistake I've made so far.

The point is I've been erring on the side of caution this whole time, even though it might not seem like it.

There are some instances where the tool indeed rewards bad behavior, such as types of AI posting or plagiarism, and that is unfortunate. Not much I can do about that except for continue to encourage people to report AI posts.

No idea man, I assume most of the banned ones truly deserve it. I'm not against sigbans per se - I said it many times.
I don't want to discuss this individually - I didn't even in arallmusses case. I spoke in general, and I think a much broader discussion/set of rules is needed if we truly want to deal with spam on BTT.

Alright:

- you assume most of the banned ones truly deserve it
- you're not against sigbans per se
- you can't mention which accounts didn't deserve it
- you suggest a broader conversation about spam is required

Great, I agree with all of these things! Next step: let's start that conversation about spam. It seems like you are inferring new rules are needed. What did you have in mind, and does it involve changes to pre-existing rules?

[questionstobeasked]

does it involve changes to pre-existing rules?

@CPM try to follow bitcointalk.org rules yourself, stop using broken tricks to get money, do not forget your black past history

[xLays]

Why will people that are somewhat good in technical discussion earn merits and later changed hands by posting only on gambling boards?

If you treat activity on bitcointalk like a job, it's much easier to fill your post quota in the gambling section of the forum than in Technical Discussion and similar boards. 

Without going through his post history, maybe the screenshot below is one of the reasons he got sigbanned.

This really looks familiar to an account that was already sigbanned like schedule posts although the pattern here is different. So I guess we won’t be surprised if, someday or soon this turns out to be part one of farmed account.

The posting habit says it all. If I were nutildah, I wouldn’t grant this sigban appeal.