Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ

[josef2000]

Thanks for the post!
It definately should be stickied!

[Mig-23]

better if telling to the member who got banned what their fault,..
the rules must be clear and transparant
and the rules should be placed at the menu homepage if needed,.
so we all here can read
thanks

[SaltySpitoon]

Just a heads up, I stickied the thread for you. With the thousands of "what did I do wrong?" meta threads popping up, I didn't think that your pretty well documented list of basic rules needed to be fighting for the front page or be bumped daily for people to find it. The poll is pretty overwhelmingly in support, and its pretty clear that it is the unofficial rules, so it doesn't interfere with the necesity for the rules to be flexible to deal with issues on a case by case basis. If there is any concern about this being stickied, direct it at me. At the moment I can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't be, so I acted.

Thanks mprep and contributors.

[hilariousandco]

I think it's a good choice though maybe BadBear doesn't agree? I think people should be given a chance to see the rules though, but as with most stickies most people don't seem to read them but I guess they've got no excuse now.

[mprep]

Just a heads up, I stickied the thread for you. With the thousands of "what did I do wrong?" meta threads popping up, I didn't think that your pretty well documented list of basic rules needed to be fighting for the front page or be bumped daily for people to find it. The poll is pretty overwhelmingly in support, and its pretty clear that it is the unofficial rules, so it doesn't interfere with the necesity for the rules to be flexible to deal with issues on a case by case basis. If there is any concern about this being stickied, direct it at me. At the moment I can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't be, so I acted.

Thanks mprep and contributors.

Thanks. Closed the poll.

I think it's a good choice though maybe BadBear doesn't agree? I think people should be given a chance to see the rules though, but as with most stickies most people don't seem to read them but I guess they've got no excuse now.

As it is stated, I've named it "unofficial" for a reason. It's more of a reference thread rather than something to unquestionably base on. If BadBear sees any sentence that might show otherwise, I will change it so others wouldn't get the wrong idea.

[hilariousandco]

It might be 'unofficial' but stickying it can seem as officially sanctioning it IMO, but I think he just wasn't too keen on that happening but maybe he's relaxed his position on the matter. I think the rules should be clearly stated for people though regardless of if they will try get round them.

A few suggestions: Seems the Investor-based Games section hasn't been added to the list of boards. Could you maybe add a list of staff/mods as well? I think that would be helpful. Maybe adding the activity updates thread to the activity section would be helpful also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582736.0

[mprep]

It might be 'unofficial' but stickying it can seem as officially sanctioning it IMO, but I think he just wasn't too keen on that happening but maybe he's relaxed his position on the matter. I think the rules should be clearly stated for people though regardless of if they will try get round them.

A few suggestions: Seems the Investor-based Games section hasn't been added to the list of boards. Could you maybe add a list of staff/mods as well? I think that would be helpful. Maybe adding the activity updates thread to the activity section would be helpful also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582736.0

Yeah, I was thinking of adding the new section just now. Will implement the suggestions later today or tomorrow.

[dserrano5]

It might be 'unofficial' but stickying it can seem as officially sanctioning it IMO

You have a point here. Maybe the OP could be "decorated" with a mod note, like those bold red you know , saying that the thread has been stickied not because of any kind of backing or sanctioning but because it's more useful at the top.

[SaltySpitoon]

I think it's a good choice though maybe BadBear doesn't agree? I think people should be given a chance to see the rules though, but as with most stickies most people don't seem to read them but I guess they've got no excuse now.

I know we have discussed it in the past, I was even against stickying it, as it was uneccessary, but in light of recent increase in spam ban outrage, hopefully people will see the list of unofficial rules before posting, although I wont hold my breath. That said, thats why I mentioned that I was stickying it in the first place, so if Badbear has a reason to unsticky it, he can do so and knows who to tell why. I really couldn't see any downsides after evaluation, so I figured why not.

[mprep]

Edited the OP including a few suggestions by hilariousandco:

-Added the new Gambling child board in the guidelines:

Investor-based Games (child board of Gambling) - "Games where the main factor is whether or not new "investors" join the game. Also any Bitcoin-denominated investment product with an APY far above the reasonable market rate. " That includes ponzis, HYIP and other "invest and get tons of cash tomorrow" type sites.

-Added a new FAQ question:

Q: Where can I find all the moderators/staff/administrators?
A: Just go to the Member search page (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=mlist;sa=search), untick all the boxes and then tick "Search by position". To find all regular moderators like board moderators, local moderators or patrollers (site-wide newbie moderators), search for "Staff" (without the quotation marks). To find all global moderators, search for "Global Moderator". To find all admins, search for "Administrator".

Make sure to check you are not dealing with an imposter: real mods have the "Position:" field (or the field bellow their username and above their rank (like 'Member' or "Hero member") when they PM or post) set as either Staff, Global Moderator or Administrator. Also, administrators and global moderators have a half colored last coin when you view the left side of their PM or a post. Admins have a red one and global mods have a light blue colored one.

-Edited in a thread about activity in the FAQ:

Q: How does activity work?
...
Some extra reading on it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582736.0

-Added a note at the top of the thread in light of the sticky:

NOTE: This is meant to serve as a reference/educational/informational thread, NOT a rock solid list of rules.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Thank you, mprep! You are doing a great job!

   -MZ

[Grand_Voyageur]

=snip=

-Added a note at the top of the thread in light of the sticky:

NOTE: This is meant to serve as a reference/educational/informational thread, NOT a rock solid list of rules.

Just wondering about the need to add such a note when the thread title already states "Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ". Maybe people here have difficulties to understand the meaning of words, even when free dictionaries like wordreference.com exists? Also saying When deciding if a user has broken the rules, the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules to me seems plain clair that mods & admin have the final say over something against the well-being of forum (the thing rules are made to secure) no matter someone will cry in Meta.
IMHO, adding a note like yours could only make new users more insecure over the rules governing this forum.

Just my 2 satoshi, however.

[jorgelugra]

Well done! the topic is sticky now, congratulations and great job making this specially for us the newbies, thank you

[crazyearner]

Interesting reading on the  rules etc.

Q: I saw a guy selling Bitcointalk accounts. Why is that allowed?
A: Since we can't effectively prevent these sales (proxies, TOR, sales in other forums), we don't because otherwise we would be giving the users a false sense of security.


why would this be giving the user a false sense of security. If a person sells an account then that other person might of already been banned or suspended in the past or done something illegal or traded or scammed and just got a new account with no limits on it. This only promotes for making it simpler for people to get away with doing or brake TOS and rules and repeating getting banned on an account coming back and scamming again.

Rules should have it 1 account 1 account only if you get banned you can not make another account up. Proxy access should be also suspended and not used as it will keep the risk and also prevention of scammers coming back joining and be a lot more cleaner of scammers. Giving the ability to buy an account just evades ban rules and defies any of your rules or regulations in place for that person to oversee them rules by making a new account bypassing or buying an account and bypassing rules in place. Sort of contradicting your own rules in place than being a false sense of security.

[hilariousandco]

Even if we made it a rule it wouldn't stop it from happening. People are allowed multiple accounts for several genuine reasons and limiting proxy or tor use would punish a lot of said genuine users.

[xandry]

I voted to stickie

However,

4. No referral code (ref link)

Its sad the children have ruined this in the way they did.  

You can post ref links but only if it's relevant to the thread. Ie if someone asks what is the best dicesite people can post their ref links for PrimeDice or whatever.

Let me clarify... if someone started tread like "what good dogecoin faucets you know?" and everyone starts writing messages with referral links, then this is ok?

[mprep]

I voted to stickie

However,

4. No referral code (ref link)

Its sad the children have ruined this in the way they did.  

You can post ref links but only if it's relevant to the thread. Ie if someone asks what is the best dicesite people can post their ref links for PrimeDice or whatever.

Let me clarify... if someone started tread like "what good dogecoin faucets you know?" and everyone starts writing messages with referral links, then this is ok?

Yup, as long as they don't go overboard and start posting banners or whole promotional speeches. If they just post a link and say that they use it, like it, get that much from it than it should be fine.

[Welsh]

Interesting reading on the  rules etc.

Q: I saw a guy selling Bitcointalk accounts. Why is that allowed?
A: Since we can't effectively prevent these sales (proxies, TOR, sales in other forums), we don't because otherwise we would be giving the users a false sense of security.


why would this be giving the user a false sense of security. If a person sells an account then that other person might of already been banned or suspended in the past or done something illegal or traded or scammed and just got a new account with no limits on it. This only promotes for making it simpler for people to get away with doing or brake TOS and rules and repeating getting banned on an account coming back and scamming again.

Rules should have it 1 account 1 account only if you get banned you can not make another account up. Proxy access should be also suspended and not used as it will keep the risk and also prevention of scammers coming back joining and be a lot more cleaner of scammers. Giving the ability to buy an account just evades ban rules and defies any of your rules or regulations in place for that person to oversee them rules by making a new account bypassing or buying an account and bypassing rules in place. Sort of contradicting your own rules in place than being a false sense of security.

It's been discussed before, how difficult it is to catch multiple users if they are doing it right, at the moment I say allow it and let them get lazy and mess up. Otherwise, if it was a solid rule they could step up their game and be harder to find out.

[SaltySpitoon]

Interesting reading on the  rules etc.

Q: I saw a guy selling Bitcointalk accounts. Why is that allowed?
A: Since we can't effectively prevent these sales (proxies, TOR, sales in other forums), we don't because otherwise we would be giving the users a false sense of security.


why would this be giving the user a false sense of security. If a person sells an account then that other person might of already been banned or suspended in the past or done something illegal or traded or scammed and just got a new account with no limits on it. This only promotes for making it simpler for people to get away with doing or brake TOS and rules and repeating getting banned on an account coming back and scamming again.

Rules should have it 1 account 1 account only if you get banned you can not make another account up. Proxy access should be also suspended and not used as it will keep the risk and also prevention of scammers coming back joining and be a lot more cleaner of scammers. Giving the ability to buy an account just evades ban rules and defies any of your rules or regulations in place for that person to oversee them rules by making a new account bypassing or buying an account and bypassing rules in place. Sort of contradicting your own rules in place than being a false sense of security.

It's been discussed before, how difficult it is to catch multiple users if they are doing it right, at the moment I say allow it and let them get lazy and mess up. Otherwise, if it was a solid rule they could step up their game and be harder to find out.

There are a multitude of reasons for not banning multiple accounts. One reason is indeed that it would be too difficult to reliably do so, why make a rule that you can't enforce? Also, people have the right to pseudonymity/free speech. Allowing people to have multiple accounts is pretty useful for certain situations. For example, if I had a strong unpopular political opinion, and I spoke about it on this account, I'd have people pming me to annoy me about it, distracting me from more important things. Same thing is true with business owners. If you own a Bitcoin business, having another account to represent your personal opinions and having another account to represent your business is often a good move. You look a lot less professional if you are getting into arguments with people as a respected business person.

As far as buying/selling accounts, again it can't be enforced. They could arranged account sales through encrypted methods through PM, off site, etc. Just allowing it makes it publicly known that its something that happens. If we banned account sales, and then someone got scammed by an account that was purchased/sold, people would be upset at the forum for not protecting them as promised.

Something a lot of people don't seem to think of, is that this forum is about conversation. The fact that it has a section for people to trade is secondary. Bitcointalk isn't a Bitcoin classified site, we aren't going to create rules that negatively effect the site's purpose just for a single section that is a secondary priority. There are Bitcoin market sites out there that deal exclusively in trading items for Bitcoins. They probably have more strict rules for helping people buy/sell things, but I doubt their forum policy is as developed as this forum's.

[MakeBelieve]

Finally got sticky! Thanks theymos!