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

[jamyr]

Please advise of whether I should report this type of abuse, and how—or should I handle this on my own, whatever that may involve?

I do not think that the staff had the power to moderate self-moderated thread "abuse". Although if you would want a bit of an untrained advise, I would say a fire would only grow and will keep on burning unless you cease to put more fuel in it. But if you want to not have the responsibility of moderating a self moderated thread, you can just un-selfmoderate the thread, and then you can report to staff for moderation.

[1713895853]

1713895853

[1713895853]

1713895853

[1713895853]

1713895853

[1713895853]

1713895853

[1713895853]

1713895853

[mprep]

I request guidance on what to do if a user repeatedly reposts deleted content in self-moderated threads—especially if the user reacts to self-mod deletions at a speed which raises reasonable suspicions that the user deployed a spambot to defeat self-mod.

I do not like to run to staff for help with this.  The whole point of the self-moderation feature is that topic starters are supposed to handle these problems on their own:  Anarchy, self-help, etc.  However, the abuse-handling tools for self-mod are quite limited compared to the tools available to staff.  Moreover, a self-mod topic starter cannot sit on top of a topic 24/7 to control abusive behaviour.

N.b. that this is a persistent problem.  The same user has repeatedly defied my self-mod rules before, and created a Reputation topic devoted to calling me “a cunt” because I banned her from my topics (!).  I never complained in Meta before, because it was not a Meta issue; I just dealt with it.  Whereas the user is obsessed with forcing her way into my self-mod topics; her escalating, seriously abusive behaviour motivates my question now.

On the flipside, I am asking because I admit:  I am a little bit evil.  Well, more than a little bit.  If this behaviour is fully consistent with the forum rules, and if I am assured it will not cause any reaction from staff, then I may be tempted to obtain my own spambot, and hammer the hell out of “very self such moderated” threads habitually started by the user who did this.  Yes, that user is a hypocrite who deserves a taste of her own medicine...  Anarchy, self-help, etc.  Of course, I would not engage in such grossly abusive behaviour if it is against the forum rules! 

The below quote illustrates the problem, but only partly.  The user rapidly reposted identical content 21 times; she only stopped after I started publicly counting the deletions in another thread.  If deletion had been done by staff, that would surely result in at least a temp-ban—regardless of whether the user disagreed with the deletion.  The reasonableness of the deletion is irrelevant to the abusive behaviour.

Observe the timestamps; they do not reflect my own relatively slow speed in manually responding to reposts.  I could only catch a few of these fast, by sitting there and repeatedly reloading the page; who has time for that?  Staff and administrators should have access to the corresponding deletion logs which show when each post was deleted.

Please advise of whether I should report this type of abuse, and how—or should I handle this on my own, whatever that may involve?

Thanks.

-quote snip-

AFAIK you should publicly (in such a way that both a moderator can verify and the user in-question is sure to notice) warn the user to stop posting in your self-moderated thread (e.g. making a dedicated post in your self-moderated thread as well as editing in said warning into the OP). If the user doesn't heed the warning, you should report his post(s) and the user will be (temp)banned.

[nullius]

I request guidance on what to do if a user repeatedly reposts deleted content in self-moderated threads—especially if the user reacts to self-mod deletions at a speed which raises reasonable suspicions that the user deployed a spambot to defeat self-mod. [...]

AFAIK you should publicly (in such a way that both a moderator can verify and the user in-question is sure to notice) warn the user to stop posting in your self-moderated thread (e.g. making a dedicated post in your self-moderated thread as well as editing in said warning into the OP). If the user doesn't heed the warning, you should report his post(s) and the user will be (temp)banned.

Thanks for the response, mprep.  I think that reasonably preserves the DIY ethos of the self-mod feature, whilst preventing net-abuse tactics from being deployed against people who don’t actually have administrative tools to respond to that.  I will be guided accordingly.

[ifarted]

This is actually a good list for users who want to learn about bitcointalk. It is very detailed and is a good guideline.

Actually i was wondering what will happen if a user repeatedly posts in a thread, then on the other thread and so on with different dates but not that far that has the same words and content?. Is it okay to duplicate your own posts and posts it many times?. Actually i've seen someone does it and got a lot of merits because of it and so it made me kinda curious.

[Rikafip]

This is actually a good list for users who want to learn about bitcointalk. It is very detailed and is a good guideline.

Actually i was wondering what will happen if a user repeatedly posts in a thread, then on the other thread and so on with different dates but not that far that has the same words and content?. Is it okay to duplicate your own posts and posts it many times?. Actually i've seen someone does it and got a lot of merits because of it and so it made me kinda curious.

Its against the rules, check rule nr 12. If you are lucky, you will just end up with posts being deleted, but I can see you getting temporary ban due that, and maybe even perma if you keep doing that. By the way, can you maybe share proof of that person spamming the same post all over again and farming merit that way.

12. No duplicate posting in multiple boards (except for re-posting topics in the local language boards if they're translated and re-posting marketplace topics in the altcoin boards if altcoins are accepted).

[Welsh]

Actually i was wondering what will happen if a user repeatedly posts in a thread, then on the other thread and so on with different dates but not that far that has the same words and content?. Is it okay to duplicate your own posts and posts it many times?. Actually i've seen someone does it and got a lot of merits because of it and so it made me kinda curious.

Report the user using the "report to moderator" button found on the bottom right of each post, give a nice little detailed comment, and include your references. That way you'll get your answer, and we could potentially remove some unwanted posts on the forum. Don't worry about getting a bad report, it's insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

[PrimeNumber7]

I am confident this is a rule enforced by the moderators but does not appear in the OP.

"34. Discussions about the moderation of threads, or the forum are automatically off-topic in all threads except threads located in meta"

I think it would be beneficial to add the above to the OP. I don't think everyone is aware of this rule, and adding it should cut down on these rule violations.

[mprep]

I am confident this is a rule enforced by the moderators but does not appear in the OP.

"34. Discussions about the moderation of threads, or the forum are automatically off-topic in all threads except threads located in meta"

I think it would be beneficial to add the above to the OP. I don't think everyone is aware of this rule, and adding it should cut down on these rule violations.

While discussing moderation in a thread not about moderation is usually off-topic, it isn't automatically off-topic. Whether it's off-topic depends on the context - someone complaining that "X thing is moderated and shouldn't be handled by the community" isn't necessarily off-topic in a Reputation thread about thing X but someone posting a complaint about his / her posts being deleted in a non-Meta thread they were deleted from is usually off-topic. Context is also massively important when it comes to off-topic content as well - a throwaway line about moderation in a massive post that is completely on topic doesn't always warrant deletion or changes. Obviously, that's my interpretation of what is and isn't off-topic in such cases which brings me to another issue with the proposed rule - what is considered off-topic is up to a moderator's discretion. Considering how subjective this rule is, trying to codify it too much will lead to an inaccurate view of the rules. To quote an older post of mine about a similar issue:

As with automated translations, in the end the rules are enforced by moderators. Me trying to zero in on what is and isn't plagiarism more than I already have would only reflect my own approach towards the enforcement of said rule. As theymos mentioned numerous times, there are reasons as to why there are no "official, hard rules (aside from the few legally-required ones)" - it's up to individual moderators to decide whether acting on amperceived violation of forum policy is the "right" thing to do. As such, I don't think there's a need to expand or adjust rule 33, at least not at this point in time.

tl;dr The proposed rule doesn't account for the mountains of context / subjectivity of off-topicness and off-topic posts are already covered under rule 2.

[PrimeNumber7]

I am confident this is a rule enforced by the moderators but does not appear in the OP.

"34. Discussions about the moderation of threads, or the forum are automatically off-topic in all threads except threads located in meta"

I think it would be beneficial to add the above to the OP. I don't think everyone is aware of this rule, and adding it should cut down on these rule violations.

While discussing moderation in a thread not about moderation is usually off-topic, it isn't automatically off-topic. Whether it's off-topic depends on the context - someone complaining that "X thing is moderated and shouldn't be handled by the community" isn't necessarily off-topic in a Reputation thread about thing X but someone posting a complaint about his / her posts being deleted in a non-Meta thread they were deleted from is usually off-topic. Context is also massively important when it comes to off-topic content as well - a throwaway line about moderation in a massive post that is completely on topic doesn't always warrant deletion or changes. Obviously, that's my interpretation of what is and isn't off-topic in such cases which brings me to another issue with the proposed rule - what is considered off-topic is up to a moderator's discretion. Considering how subjective this rule is, trying to codify it too much will lead to an inaccurate view of the rules. To quote an older post of mine about a similar issue:

As with automated translations, in the end the rules are enforced by moderators. Me trying to zero in on what is and isn't plagiarism more than I already have would only reflect my own approach towards the enforcement of said rule. As theymos mentioned numerous times, there are reasons as to why there are no "official, hard rules (aside from the few legally-required ones)" - it's up to individual moderators to decide whether acting on amperceived violation of forum policy is the "right" thing to do. As such, I don't think there's a need to expand or adjust rule 33, at least not at this point in time.

tl;dr The proposed rule doesn't account for the mountains of context / subjectivity of off-topicness and off-topic posts are already covered under rule 2.

Perhaps the rule could be narrowed such that it would always apply. One suggestion might be to narrow the rule to say that you cannot complain about posts being deleted from that specific thread unless the thread is in meta. Another option might be that it is not acceptable to repost a post that was previously deleted by the moderators, without permission from a moderator, or that you cannot take action to reverse what a moderator did, unless you are complaining in meta, or have received permission to do so.

I don’t see it every day, but there are spirts of instances where someone will complain about the moderation about a specific thread in that thread, specifically they are complaining that posts are being deleted (never about posts not being deleted).

Regardless a one line about the moderation in an otherwise on-topic post, I have seen off-topic divergences that have one line related to the OP, even though the majority of the post is off-topic. I bite my tongue and don’t report these posts because they are technically on-topic. Perhaps some similar standard could be written.

My biggest concern is that someone who is complaining should know where to complain about the moderation. Almost all the time, if a post is moderated, the moderation follows forum policy. However there is always the risk a mod goes rogue, or a mod account gets hacked. If this happens and people complain in the wrong section, the administration will have difficulty detecting the moderator doing something he shouldn’t be.

[Welsh]

I take a similar approach to Mprep, in that if the majority of the post is on topic, then I'll likely leave it. After all, I think we all stray somewhat off topic, but as long as we keep the main point on topic, and the majority of the post on topic I don't think it's that big of a problem.

Another option might be that it is not acceptable to repost a post that was previously deleted by the moderators, without permission from a moderator, or that you cannot take action to reverse what a moderator did, unless you are complaining in meta, or have received permission to do so.

As far as I know, this will likely lead to harsher actions being taken if this continues. Likely starting at personal messages warning of the fact, then leading onto a temporary ban. Though, I've yet to be in this position, most people aren't that persistent, and just accept it or complain in Meta which is fine.

My biggest concern is that someone who is complaining should know where to complain about the moderation. Almost all the time, if a post is moderated, the moderation follows forum policy. However there is always the risk a mod goes rogue, or a mod account gets hacked. If this happens and people complain in the wrong section, the administration will have difficulty detecting the moderator doing something he shouldn’t be.

Yeah, in a perfect world that's what would happen. Though, I'd like to think that if someone was being punished unfairly or at least suspecting that a moderator has gone rogue as you put it, contact an admin to get it sorted or at least look up where to post complaints.

I'm not sure how much this has happened in Bitcointalk's history though, I don't think I recall many instances, maybe once? So, either the admins do a good job of getting on it right away or it just doesn't happen very often.

[Doctor Zero]

I take a similar approach to Mprep, in that if the majority of the post is on topic, then I'll likely leave it. After all, I think we all stray somewhat off topic, but as long as we keep the main point on topic, and the majority of the post on topic I don't think it's that big of a problem.

Another option might be that it is not acceptable to repost a post that was previously deleted by the moderators, without permission from a moderator, or that you cannot take action to reverse what a moderator did, unless you are complaining in meta, or have received permission to do so.

As far as I know, this will likely lead to harsher actions being taken if this continues. Likely starting at personal messages warning of the fact, then leading onto a temporary ban. Though, I've yet to be in this position, most people aren't that persistent, and just accept it or complain in Meta which is fine.

My biggest concern is that someone who is complaining should know where to complain about the moderation. Almost all the time, if a post is moderated, the moderation follows forum policy. However there is always the risk a mod goes rogue, or a mod account gets hacked. If this happens and people complain in the wrong section, the administration will have difficulty detecting the moderator doing something he shouldn’t be.

Yeah, in a perfect world that's what would happen. Though, I'd like to think that if someone was being punished unfairly or at least suspecting that a moderator has gone rogue as you put it, contact an admin to get it sorted or at least look up where to post complaints.

I'm not sure how much this has happened in Bitcointalk's history though, I don't think I recall many instances, maybe once? So, either the admins do a good job of getting on it right away or it just doesn't happen very often.

Look,  a staff members that maybe cares.  Vlad2vlad- 9 year legendary lead dev of several coins, and confronted a thief.  It’s been a month and since mods targeted his threads especially his favorite most active one, the riddle thread.  Everyday with him banned they deleted and merge hundreds of posts of his and other posters.  They’re retaliating and targeting vlad, dropping his count and trying to destroy his rep. 

The coward mod won’t even post his name.  The guy he accused never responded to PM or on the goldcoin community.  Criminal evidence was deleted but vlad has screenshots.  9 years and the guy has only had  2-3 14 day bans now he’s being treated like a criminal.

He PM’s cobra and Luke, he knows both to a decent degree.  Nothing.  This a concerted effort to attack and destroy one of the most legitimate posters you guys have.  Vlad got angry with all the deletions on the riddle thread so he said ok I’ll help and he himself deleted tons of his own messages.  Then they banned him and restored his thread but continue with the insane merging.  The merging they’re doing is absurd and you won’t find it on any other poster’s thread.  It’s just Vlad2Vlad. 

I request all my threads be completely deleted.  I worked hard for my research - I’m not a post monkey.  I even worked with Craig for a while.  Straighten my thread to new or completely delete all of its content.  Locking the thread will just anger me more.  You can’t have your cake eat it too. 

And Luke, you are not a fair just man.  Neither are you Craig.  You just sit and watch. 

Try to rip off my identity and I’ll show up in person at your biggest confests.  I asked to do this nicely, I left microguy alone but you kept deleting and merging daily for no reason.

Just to teach me that in bitcointalk things aren’t discussed, they’re done the gestapo way. 

Vlad2vlad

[suchmoon]

~
Vlad2vlad

You should create a separate ban appeal thread, this is not the right place for your grievances.

[Doctor Zero]

~
Vlad2vlad

You should create a separate ban appeal thread, this is not the right place for your grievances.

No doubt it’s gonna be packed with concerned mods and cobra will be there too because currently they have no idea. 

[PrimeNumber7]

Fair enough. Maybe I (or someone else) will be able to come up with a better implementation (wording) of this in the future.

I had noticed that complaints about moderation (and reposts of deleted posts) were being edited out of some posts, even when some of the post was on-topic (and was allowed to remain).

[KosmoKisa]

Hello, @mprep please tell me the rules allow me to post this signature: Binance is giving away $500,000 of crypto this Valentine’s Day! All you gotta do is use my referral link. Spreading the love to you guys!

thanks

[Xal0lex]

Hello, @mprep please tell me the rules allow me to post this signature: Binance is giving away $500,000 of crypto this Valentine’s Day! All you gotta do is use my referral link. Spreading the love to you guys!

thanks

I'm not a @mprep , but I'll allow myself to quote this one:

You are allowed to put referal links in your signature, the main concern with referal links is people creating spam to give out their referal links. You can put whatever you want in your signature as long as its not a link to malware, or if its a link to a NSFW site, please label it as such. Nothing sucks worse than getting into a bad situation because that buycoinsdirect.com link in your signature is actually a cam site. Different user groups, IE legendary/Newbie have different restrictions on what sort of formating is able to be used in their signature. For example newbie accounts can't have links, certain usergroups can't have styled signatures, etc. That is disabled by settings not something you can accidentally mess up.

[KosmoKisa]

Hello, @mprep please tell me the rules allow me to post this signature: Binance is giving away $500,000 of crypto this Valentine’s Day! All you gotta do is use my referral link. Spreading the love to you guys!

thanks

I'm not a @mprep , but I'll allow myself to quote this one:

You are allowed to put referal links in your signature, the main concern with referal links is people creating spam to give out their referal links. You can put whatever you want in your signature as long as its not a link to malware, or if its a link to a NSFW site, please label it as such. Nothing sucks worse than getting into a bad situation because that buycoinsdirect.com link in your signature is actually a cam site. Different user groups, IE legendary/Newbie have different restrictions on what sort of formating is able to be used in their signature. For example newbie accounts can't have links, certain usergroups can't have styled signatures, etc. That is disabled by settings not something you can accidentally mess up.

thanks for answer Xal0lex. But i worry what my link this is exchanche Binance. (I have long seen somewhere on the forum that links to exchangers are prohibited)

[kaicrypzen]

I'm not a @mprep , but I'll allow myself to quote this one:

You are allowed to put referal links in your signature, the main concern with referal links is people creating spam to give out their referal links. You can put whatever you want in your signature as long as its not a link to malware, or if its a link to a NSFW site, please label it as such. Nothing sucks worse than getting into a bad situation because that buycoinsdirect.com link in your signature is actually a cam site. Different user groups, IE legendary/Newbie have different restrictions on what sort of formating is able to be used in their signature. For example newbie accounts can't have links, certain usergroups can't have styled signatures, etc. That is disabled by settings not something you can accidentally mess up.

thanks for answer Xal0lex. But i worry what my link this is exchanche Binance. (I have long seen somewhere on the forum that links to exchangers are prohibited)

Can you find what you saw and where you saw it?

In the opening post, there's this about exchanges:

22. Advertising (this includes mining pools, gambling services, exchanges, shops, etc.) in others' threads is no longer allowed, including, but not limited to, in altcoin announcement threads.

Nothing about signatures in there.

And to add to Xal0lex reply, here is the rule from the opening post about referral links:

4. No referral code (ref link) spam.

Spamming would be positing irrelvant messages with your referral link, including messages saying "check my signature".

So it looks like you are safe to put a referral link in your signature.

[Xal0lex]

thanks for answer Xal0lex. But i worry what my link this is exchanche Binance. (I have long seen somewhere on the forum that links to exchangers are prohibited)

This is the first I've heard of it. What is the difference between a Binance referral link and referral links to other services? Or is it forbidden to mention Binance on the forum?

[Quickseller]

thanks for answer Xal0lex. But i worry what my link this is exchanche Binance. (I have long seen somewhere on the forum that links to exchangers are prohibited)

You can post links to exchangers, such as binance. However you cannot post referral link spam in your posts. So you can either post binance, or you could tell someone to check your signature to get the link to binance (with a ref link), provided that doing so is not off topic.