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

[InvoKing]

I would like to translate this post into Hindi
Can I translate it?
I will do my best if given a chance.

If you don't have one in your local board (your language isn't listed in this topic but maybe someone already did it?) then i think that you can, but do not expect something in return

[1714166270]

1714166270

[zoomzoom]

Recently I discovered a user to be using no less than 14 accounts to bypass the rules of mine and other bounty campaigns (the rule being one account per user). I'm about 95% that all accounts belong to one user, having messaged a moderator he informed me this didn't break any rules, and that also moderators cannot interfere with scam accusations to prevent bias. Which I think is fair, however this users actions are negative, and badly effect the legitimate business of bounties.
I could post the accusation of the scam, and name the accounts, but this would help nothing as they could just create more accounts. I realise there are no rules around this but would be interested in having some discussion about this, I personally think such a user should be banned, in my opinion, do other people share the same?

[SFR10]

having messaged a moderator he informed me this didn't break any rules, and that also moderators cannot interfere with scam accusations to prevent bias.

That's correct:

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

19. Possible (or real) scams and Trust ratings are not moderated (to prevent moderation abuse).

I could post the accusation of the scam, and name the accounts, but this would help nothing as they could just create more accounts.

By not doing it, you're not helping either (at the same time, you're indirectly encouraging them to continue).
- Create a thread in Reputation (that's where users usually post such cases) > Provide the necessary information > wait for them to be tagged.

I personally think such a user should be banned, in my opinion, do other people share the same?

Yes (but since it isn't against the forum rules, nothing will happen).

[zoomzoom]

having messaged a moderator he informed me this didn't break any rules, and that also moderators cannot interfere with scam accusations to prevent bias.

That's correct:

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

19. Possible (or real) scams and Trust ratings are not moderated (to prevent moderation abuse).

I could post the accusation of the scam, and name the accounts, but this would help nothing as they could just create more accounts.

By not doing it, you're not helping either (at the same time, you're indirectly encouraging them to continue).
- Create a thread in Reputation (that's where users usually post such cases) > Provide the necessary information > wait for them to be tagged.

I personally think such a user should be banned, in my opinion, do other people share the same?

Yes (but since it isn't against the forum rules, nothing will happen).

My reasoning for not doing so was to see if there could be some discussion around this rule, if I was to post then that would alert the scamming user that he'd be noticed, and thus take measures to make sure he isn't noticed in future. Whereas I have pretty damning evidence at the moment, more evidence could be accumulated, and then the user would be more likely to be banned (were such a rule to exist). Anyway, I presume this is why this thread is open, to discuss/ clarify rules.

[TheQuin]

My reasoning for not doing so was to see if there could be some discussion around this rule, if I was to post then that would alert the scamming user that he'd be noticed, and thus take measures to make sure he isn't noticed in future. Whereas I have pretty damning evidence at the moment, more evidence could be accumulated, and then the user would be more likely to be banned (were such a rule to exist). Anyway, I presume this is why this thread is open, to discuss/ clarify rules.

It has been discussed and clarified many times before. The consensus is that these things are not moderated by a centralised authority (admins and mods) but by the decentralised trust system (the community). So it is something you should report on Reputation board where it will be discussed and dealt with.

[hilariousetc]

I just want to add one further note to that. The practice of having undisclosed alts is likely to attract negative trust. The only way to avoid it is to openly declare the alts as many high ranking individuals have done. Leave trust to your other account stating 'this is my alt' and post in Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk III (2018 Q1) thread to declare it there.

This isn't true and the only real time people usually tag alt accounts is if they've been used for shenanigans or to bypass regulations in sig campaigns or something else. People should be free to have any amount of anonymous alts if they so wish. The whole point of theymos even allowing alts is for privacy and anonymity sake and whether you want to expose them or not is up to you but people shouldn't be forced or even suggested to self-out them and there shouldn't be repercussions for those who are doing nothing wrong with them.

[malekcap]

Translations:

Spanish translation "Reglas no oficiales del foro" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=705523.0) by dserrano5

German translation "Inoffizielle Bitcointalk.org Regeln/Richtlinien/FAQ" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=767079.0) by Zephir

Portuguese translation "Lista "não-oficial" de Regras do Fórum" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=759695.0) by Adriano

Croatian translation "Neslužbena lista Bitcointalk.org pravila/smjernica/FAQ"  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1182311.0) by Lauda

Arabic translation "قائمة غير رسمية من القواعد الرسمية للموقع" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2345906.0) by hugeblack

Filipino translation "Unofficial Forum Rules & Guildelines (Tagalog Version)" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2383339.0) by nc50lc

Polish translation "Nieoficjalna lista (oficjalnych) zasad, wskazówek, FAQ Bitcointalk.org by mprep" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2861831.0) by poptok1




do you need french translation please for this post? i could post it for you

[sncc]

Regarding the rule No. 33 about plagiarism, is there a consensus for the correct way of the citation?  I think the most appropriate way is to enclose contents from other websites/posts by "quote".
[EDIT: quotation for other posts in the forum in the standard form automatically comes with the link to the post, but quotation for external webpage one should write the direct link to the specific webpage near the quotation.]

If the above quotation style is a consensus, it would be good to clarify the definition of the correct way of citation in the rule because some users are making use of the absence of it as a loophole: sometimes people use the contents without "quote" but with small citation which looks like they are trying to hide it, e.g.,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3199418.msg33194095#msg33194095
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818999.msg32274273#msg32274273

and other users post the contents even without mentioning the original threads, which I think conflicts the rule No. 33, see, e.g.:  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3130158.msg32381100#msg32381100
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818999.msg32791816#msg32791816

These things are also being discussed in these threads:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3255944.0 (use of "quote" for external webpage with link)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3272524.0 (validity of small citation without "quote")

Since the number of these gray area posts seems increasing after merit system, it would be useful to clarify in the rule No. 33 whether the small citation without "quote" would be bad or good, and the definition of the correct way of the citation.

[kalunomics]

Did I just read that creating another account when one is banned is against the rule too? When I joined Bitcointalk newly through an airdrop program that required us to post in the official ANN of the project, my account got banned after few weeks of engaging in such activities, probably because I had nothing substantial to say than just to praise the coin/token or the developers. I was just a newbie that had no knowledge on how blockchain technology works so the comments I made was related to the comments I saw in the threads. Generic comments like "great project", " nice project", "to the moon" etc. I placed an appeal for repeal of the ban and up to today, not even an acknowledgement did I receive let alone honouring nor turning down the appeal. In that case, I should have just left Bitcointalk community forum then?

[esmanthra]

do you need french translation please for this post? i could post it for you

I guess it's not the point of who needs it here rather the point of who needs it in French section.

I think the most appropriate way is to enclose contents from other websites/posts by "quote"

Not only the visualization via "quote" I think - there should be the link to the original site nearby. Moreover: links should lead to direct sources (to the pages of original articles, for example). Some spamers use the "quote" option but never adduce the proper links (placing the abstract sentences like "source: bitsmedia.com" at best as informative as "source: google.com").

Did I just read that creating another account when one is banned is against the rule too?

The only allowable occasion to create the account for banned user is to ask about their ban reason in Meta. Otherwise it's considered as ban evasion.

Ban evasion is not allowed. If it becomes known that someone who was banned created a new account, then they'll be banned again [...]

If you're planning to post [...] outside of here, don't. Talking about your ban in Meta is fine - posting outside isn't [...]

[TheQuin]

Did I just read that creating another account when one is banned is against the rule too? When I joined Bitcointalk newly through an airdrop program that required us to post in the official ANN of the project, my account got banned after few weeks of engaging in such activities, probably because I had nothing substantial to say than just to praise the coin/token or the developers. I was just a newbie that had no knowledge on how blockchain technology works so the comments I made was related to the comments I saw in the threads. Generic comments like "great project", " nice project", "to the moon" etc. I placed an appeal for repeal of the ban and up to today, not even an acknowledgement did I receive let alone honouring nor turning down the appeal. In that case, I should have just left Bitcointalk community forum then?

That is correct, if the ban was not just temporary you should have left the forum.

25. Ban evasion (using or creating accounts while one of your accounts is banned) is not allowed.

The ban applies to you as a person, not just the account. In reality that is pretty difficult to enforce so many banned people do come back.

[sncc]

I think the most appropriate way is to enclose contents from other websites/posts by "quote"

Not only the visualization via "quote" I think - there should be the link to the original site nearby. Moreover: links should lead to direct sources (to the pages of original articles, for example). Some spamers use the "quote" option but never adduce the proper links (placing the abstract sentences like "source: bitsmedia.com" at best as informative as "source: google.com").

Right that's what I had in mind, for quotation for another user's post, the correct "quote" comes with the link to the post automatically, but for the contents from the external website, the link to the specific source is necessary.  Edited my post above.

[Xal0lex]

Where can I find how much cost is a unit of evil now? Thanks for the answer.

[InvoKing]

Where can I find how much cost is a unit of evil now? Thanks for the answer.

I am a little bit confused here, why would you like to know how much it costs?
Unit of evil is shown only when you try to create an account for the first time and is related somehow to the ban recieved by your network. Personally never heard that it is available otherwise.

[Xal0lex]

I am a little bit confused here, why would you like to know how much it costs?
Unit of evil is shown only when you try to create an account for the first time and is related somehow to the ban recieved by your network. Personally never heard that it is available otherwise.

Currently each unit of evil requires a payment of 4023 satoshi. You only need to pay something if you have 1 or more, though.

Theymos wrote this message in 2014. So I was interested in whether the worth of a unit of evil has changed now.

[InvoKing]

I am a little bit confused here, why would you like to know how much it costs?
Unit of evil is shown only when you try to create an account for the first time and is related somehow to the ban recieved by your network. Personally never heard that it is available otherwise.

Currently each unit of evil requires a payment of 4023 satoshi. You only need to pay something if you have 1 or more, though.

Theymos wrote this message in 2014. So I was interested in whether the worth of a unit of evil has changed now.

Thanks for the reply wasn't aware of or maybe i forgot it, i don't remember now.

[mprep]

do you need french translation please for this post? i could post it for you

Feel free if you want.

Regarding the rule No. 33 about plagiarism, is there a consensus for the correct way of the citation?  I think the most appropriate way is to enclose contents from other websites/posts by "quote".
[EDIT: quotation for other posts in the forum in the standard form automatically comes with the link to the post, but quotation for external webpage one should write the direct link to the specific webpage near the quotation.]

If the above quotation style is a consensus, it would be good to clarify the definition of the correct way of citation in the rule because some users are making use of the absence of it as a loophole: sometimes people use the contents without "quote" but with small citation which looks like they are trying to hide it, e.g.,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3199418.msg33194095#msg33194095
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818999.msg32274273#msg32274273

and other users post the contents even without mentioning the original threads, which I think conflicts the rule No. 33, see, e.g.: 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3130158.msg32381100#msg32381100
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818999.msg32791816#msg32791816

These things are also being discussed in these threads:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3255944.0 (use of "quote" for external webpage with link)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3272524.0 (validity of small citation without "quote")

Since the number of these gray area posts seems increasing after merit system, it would be useful to clarify in the rule No. 33 whether the small citation without "quote" would be bad or good, and the definition of the correct way of the citation.

IMO as long as you can relatively easily discern the fact that the content in question is not original, it should be fine.

[sncc]

9. Discussions in the main boards must be in english. All other language discussions should be posted in the appropriate Local board. [e]

Maybe a small typo: the rule 9 has [e] for examples but there is no example for the rule 9.

[mprep]

9. Discussions in the main boards must be in english. All other language discussions should be posted in the appropriate Local board. [e]

Maybe a small typo: the rule 9 has [e] for examples but there is no example for the rule 9.

Good catch, fixed.

[TryNinja]

Hi Admin and Global Moderator, I have three interconnected accounts.
1. Almasani ( Full Member) Red Trust.
2. JR-Almasani (Newbie)
3. Trusted By Almasani (Newbie)
Excuse me! I am create a new account, because my old account is no longer usable. Let me use those two accounts. If there is any violation of my bounty campaign, please banned!
Sorry if speaking english is less regular. I just want to tell about the account.
Thanks.

So, you were cheating bounties with multiple accounts and your solution after getting a negative trust is to create more accounts? And post them here?

Not very smart.