Mistake made on thread removal and dev banning

[Blazr]

Doesn't matter if you're giving away bearshit, you can't give away things even if they worthless.

The reason is because it spams up the forum with useless posts of people claiming said giveaways. You should have set up a faucet website off forum that gave away testcoins.

[1715671422]

1715671422

[1715671422]

1715671422

[georgem]

Doesn't matter if you're giving away bearshit, you can't give away things even if they worthless.

The reason is because it spams up the forum with useless posts of people claiming said giveaways. You should have set up a faucet website off forum that gave away testcoins.

We already have. All this is a big misunderstanding.

This was not done deliberately by Mr. Spread.

So I would really appreciate it, if you could remove his ban, because this was never intended and will not happen again.

[sparkster]

It doesn't matter if they have no value or not, it's not a mistake. The rules are about curbing the spam that results from giveaways.

Altcoin giveaways are not allowed.

Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections. From now on, posting or replying to such threads could result in being banned. Existing threads will be locked.

Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your threads. You can't offer to pay people who post their addresses, usernames, etc. You can do giveaways off-site and link to the giveaway page in a thread, but you can't give people any bonus for replying to your thread.

Similar threads are already restricted to Games and Rounds in the non-altcoin sections, but the giveaway-related post volume is so high in the altcoin sections that I've decided to just ban them entirely here.

I honestly don't know how this can be more clear.

Thank you for the answer and for clarifying your position. But may I ask: it's possible to un-ban Mr. Spread anyway? It will be hard to keep up thread of our coin for 2 weeks without him. If it's not possible, I hope that it will be at least permitted if one of us will relay his most important messages to Bitcointalk.

[defunctec]

Doesn't matter if you're giving away bearshit, you can't give away things even if they worthless.

The reason is because it spams up the forum with useless posts of people claiming said giveaways. You should have set up a faucet website off forum that gave away testcoins.

We already have. All this is a big misunderstanding.

This was not done deliberately by Mr. Spread.

So I would really appreciate it, if you could remove his ban, because this was never intended and will not happen again.

spreadcointalk.org will have to do 

[coins101]

Doesn't matter if you're giving away bearshit, you can't give away things even if they worthless.

The reason is because it spams up the forum with useless posts of people claiming said giveaways. You should have set up a faucet website off forum that gave away testcoins.

In this context, the term 'giveaway' is not applicable.

They are testing. They are enabling people to test. People can't participate in testing without access to the test coins.

Anyway, they have set-up an alternative method for distributing test coins. So why not reinstate the main devs account so they can carry on testing?  The 'spam' is off the forum.

This is no longer about the test coins. It's about the dev being able to communicate with his community.

[defunctec]

Doesn't matter if you're giving away bearshit, you can't give away things even if they worthless.

The reason is because it spams up the forum with useless posts of people claiming said giveaways. You should have set up a faucet website off forum that gave away testcoins.

In this context, the term 'giveaway' is not applicable.

They are testing. They are enabling people to test. People can't participate in testing without access to the test coins.

Anyway, they have set-up an alternative method for distributing test coins. So why not reinstate the main devs account so they can carry on testing?  The 'spam' is off the forum.

This is no longer about the test coins. It's about the dev being able to communicate with his community.

Rabble rabble!

[kcanup]

Unbelieveable!! 
They were just test coins and not real coins. Please give him his account back now!! Thank you very much!

Mr. Spread is Satoshi Nakamoto for Spreadcoin so he is forgiveable for innocent mistakes. Just my small request, cheers!

[zeca pagodinho]

It doesn't matter if they have no value or not, it's not a mistake. The rules are about curbing the spam that results from giveaways.

Altcoin giveaways are not allowed.

Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections. From now on, posting or replying to such threads could result in being banned. Existing threads will be locked.

Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your threads. You can't offer to pay people who post their addresses, usernames, etc. You can do giveaways off-site and link to the giveaway page in a thread, but you can't give people any bonus for replying to your thread.

Similar threads are already restricted to Games and Rounds in the non-altcoin sections, but the giveaway-related post volume is so high in the altcoin sections that I've decided to just ban them entirely here.

I honestly don't know how this can be more clear.

You are correct in their response to requests for unban, but I think this punishment should apply only to the topic in question.
This topic which the punishment was applied has been deleted. I think banning a serious developer, and prevent you from communicating with your community does not fit the BitcoinTalk spirit.

[jjjordan]

Doesn't matter if you're giving away bearshit, you can't give away things even if they worthless.

The reason is because it spams up the forum with useless posts of people claiming said giveaways. You should have set up a faucet website off forum that gave away testcoins.

You are right. He has violated the policy.
And whoever banned him did a very prompt action. Great police work.
Now it may be a good idea to do some court work and decide if the ban should be removed.
Reasons:

1. No foul intentions (testing only).
(He has violated the policy, but his deed was not what the policy was designed to fight with.
In other words - this policy is enforced with certain goal in mind.
And the goal is not to keep coin developers from developing and users from testing)

2. The amount of users that stand for developer unbanning.

I am sure a sound judgement will be made and the proper action will be taken.
It's honorable to keep a stand and get behind principles.
It's more honorable though to admit not-so-good decision and take a better one.


Maybe an example will help mods change their mind:
If a guy is speeding with his wife in labor and is being pulled over
do you think the cop should:

1. Hold him for 30mins to check his driving record on cop's car computer, asking to take
a sobriety test and writing him a ticket while the guy's wife is giving a birth on the back seat
or
2. Escort him to the closest hospital and than giving him a ticket (optional)

[Blazr]

I know, he probably should be unbanned but I've yet to see anyone be unbanned here. It's one chance and your banned for life for the most part.

[Quickseller]

I know, he probably should be unbanned but I've yet to see anyone be unbanned here. It's one chance and your banned for life for the most part.

It has happened a few times, generally when the person requesting the ban appeal asks very nicely.

If this is their first offense then I would find it unlikely it is a perm ban. BiPolarBob was banned for 30 days for giving away 1 LTC for everyone that posted their litecoin address, so I would think he would be banned for a similar length of time.

I don't think that the fact that your coins have no value would have any weight on your argument considering the fact that all alt coins have no value.

If you want to give them away you should have users either PM you or link to another site where they can claim coins.

[BadBear]

I know, he probably should be unbanned but I've yet to see anyone be unbanned here.

That's because those who post in meta, and those who get unbanned/durations shortened are typically 2 very different kinds of people. People who most in meta tend to be the sort who don't understand why they were banned, don't agree with the ban, don't agree with the rules, want to pretend they didn't do anything and gather public sympathy, etc. All these types are likely repeat offenders for various reasons, and lifting their ban early will not help, only reinforce that they shouldn't care about the rules. I've even unbanned sig spammers before because they apologized sincerely, and were honest and upfront about what they did and why, and I can respect that.

People rarely post about being unbanned or durations being shortened. Similar to customer service, you typically only hear about the "bad" experiences.

It's one chance and your banned for life for the most part.

You have to be a fairly serious offender to get permanently banned for the first offense. Third, fourth, or fifth is more common, not counting spammers/malware/habitual trolls.

Edit:  That said, I wouldn't say modifying bans is common either, if it were common one would probably want to review their ban policies, but it isn't rare either. Also not saying posting in Meta is a bad thing, just in general. For example the arguments here are that it isn't really a giveaway, they have no value, they *had* to do a giveaway, etc. If I were to now reduce the ban duration (it isn't permanent) that would be counterproductive, though to be fair it isn't the person in question making those posts.  

[BitcoinEXpress]

It doesn't matter if they have no value or not, it's not a mistake. The rules are about curbing the spam that results from giveaways.

Altcoin giveaways are not allowed.

Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections. From now on, posting or replying to such threads could result in being banned. Existing threads will be locked.

Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your threads. You can't offer to pay people who post their addresses, usernames, etc. You can do giveaways off-site and link to the giveaway page in a thread, but you can't give people any bonus for replying to your thread.

Similar threads are already restricted to Games and Rounds in the non-altcoin sections, but the giveaway-related post volume is so high in the altcoin sections that I've decided to just ban them entirely here.

I honestly don't know how this can be more clear.

You should probably post it in English ? ? ?


~BCX~

[Lethn]

Why not just make a sub-section i reddit you control and giveaway the testnet coins there?

[MemoryShock]

Why not just make a sub-section i reddit you control and giveaway the testnet coins there?

Spreadcointalk is functioning much like your suggestion...

I agree that there was a misunderstanding but I am in no position to further appeal Staff.

Hopefully it can be ascertained that there was no malice intended with the unintended breach of protocol.

[BitcoinEXpress]

Why not just make a sub-section i reddit you control and giveaway the testnet coins there?

Spreadcointalk is functioning much like your suggestion...

I agree that there was a misunderstanding but I am in no position to further appeal Staff.

Hopefully it can be ascertained that there was no malice intended with the unintended breach of protocol.

I guess I am the only one that can clearly see that "Malice" and/or "value of coins" have NO BEARING on the banning.

Any give away, no matter what it is for, that solicits addresses, user names and or responses for for any coins will be cause for banning and thread removal.


This is a well known rule over a year old that was stickied by Theymos at the top of the forum.

~BCX~

[MemoryShock]

I guess I am the only one that can clearly see that "Malice" and/or "value of coins" have NO BEARING on the banning.

Any give away, no matter what it is for, that solicits addresses, user names and or responses for for any coins will be cause for banning and thread removal.


This is a well known rule over a year old that was stickied by Theymos at the top of the forum.

~BCX~

No...you are not the only one who sees that.

The banning occurred because the testnet thread produced a number of posts that were insubstantial...people were posting addresses for testcoins.

This is certainly an issue that I think needs moderating.  I don't think any one here is going to argue that.  It was a thread that provided a number of 'insubstantial posts'.

What we can perhaps consider is that Mr Spread was more concerned with development than he was with the inadvertent creation of insubstantial posts. The thread wasn't meant to create a hardship for BTCTalk...it was meant to facilitate its function as a communicative platform.  This is a forum intended for development as much as it is for simple discussion...if I am not wrong.

I worked as Staff for a discussion forum that had over three million unique visitors a month at its peak.  I understand the issue.  There was a breach of standards.  But as Staff, context was everything...

At this point, if Mr Spread does not appeal his postban then I see no reason to reverse it (using the context of a moderation team).  But I also think it should be noted that the context of the punishment is not in the spirit of the rule creation.

[BitcoinEXpress]

At this point, if Mr Spread does not appeal his postban then I see no reason to reverse it (using the context of a moderation team).  But I also think it should be noted that the context of the punishment is not in the spirit of the rule creation.

I would counter that with the spirit of the rule was to prevent any and all insubstantial post related to any give away.

Perhaps Badbear or Theymos himself could elaboarte on this.


~BCX~

[MemoryShock]

At this point, if Mr Spread does not appeal his postban then I see no reason to reverse it (using the context of a moderation team).  But I also think it should be noted that the context of the punishment is not in the spirit of the rule creation.

I would counter that with the spirit of the rule was to prevent any and all insubstantial post related to any give away.

Perhaps Badbear or Theymos himself could elaboarte on this.


~BCX~

My only concern with that counter is that it is possible that Mr Spread did not consider the standards of the forum when he started the thread (or perhaps even read them; I am only familiar with it because I read more than I code).  Nor am I sure that he would have interpreted the standard as relevant to his motivation (since the rule is geared toward preventing an onslaught of spam, in my interpretation).

That said...it is only a concern and I acquiesce to the decisions made by Staff (that sounds kind of weird; my point is I am not going to argue further)...interpretive decisions are needed and perhaps necessary to uphold in relation to the amount of traffic this site has.

[BitcoinEXpress]

At this point, if Mr Spread does not appeal his postban then I see no reason to reverse it (using the context of a moderation team).  But I also think it should be noted that the context of the punishment is not in the spirit of the rule creation.

I would counter that with the spirit of the rule was to prevent any and all insubstantial post related to any give away.

Perhaps Badbear or Theymos himself could elaboarte on this.


~BCX~

My only concern with that counter is that it is possible that Mr Spread did not consider the standards of the forum when he started the thread (or perhaps even read them; I am only familiar with it because I read more than I code).  Nor am I sure that he would have interpreted the standard as relevant to his motivation (since the rule is geared toward preventing an onslaught of spam, in my interpretation).

That said...it is only a concern and I acquiesce to the decisions made by Staff (that sounds kind of weird; my point is I am not going to argue further)...interpretive decisions are needed and perhaps necessary to uphold in relation to the amount of traffic this site has.

Thanks for the excellent reply.

~BCX~