Is this appeal for the reinstatement of SMZ_ supported by someone or is there only indifference?
If you have any questions, ask.
If you are about to make up for a mistake, do it.
Topic: Are useful links allowed or not? -------> Ban appeal for SMZ_ (Read 400 times)
post canceled due to lack of interest and support.
I admit that I am doing all this only because SMZ is a friend, otherwise I would have given up for a while now!
You know what they say - with "friends" like these, who needs sockpuppets.
If you all agree, I'll change the thread title as LoyceV suggested.
Lol. This isn't a democracy, you can do with the thread title as you please. You're not helping your case by making off-topic posts in this thread, promoting the same thing that got the "other guy" banned.
post canceled due to lack of interest and support.
It is not against the rules to insert links into a thread, I have done that a lot. It's only against the rules when it's done with malicious intent (lik a malware), solely to advertise a site (like a referral link), if they used link shorteners, or if you're spamming the forum with links to a particular website.
Link shorteners are allowed. What is disallowed is link shorteners that require you to view an ad in order to visit the linked website. 5. No link shorteners that require users to view an ad.
~
Ok, now you're just making shit up and peddling your conspiracy under the guise of a ban appeal. I will not entertain this nonsense here anymore - move it to the appropriate board.
post canceled due to lack of interest and support.
Of course, invalid blocks would be rejected by the majority, but no one can guarantee that a majority of 51% of the nodes have not already coalesced without everyone's knowledge and acted accordingly.
By definition the other 49% would know it the minute an invalid block is mined. So yes, I can guarantee that the block hash below represents a valid Bitcoin block and all prior blocks it links to are also valid and no one has "acted" on the blockchain in any inappropriate fashion.
Code:
{
"chain": "main",
"blocks": 696390,
"headers": 696390,
"bestblockhash": "00000000000000000011cfcdc65bf4042d1b2805b525f084a9c3e11b9dfd95ce",
"chain": "main",
"blocks": 696390,
"headers": 696390,
"bestblockhash": "00000000000000000011cfcdc65bf4042d1b2805b525f084a9c3e11b9dfd95ce",
Edit: formatting.
post canceled due to lack of interest and support.
every activity of a POW code can now be carried out with potentially malicious software that does not correspond to the specifications
Nonsense. Invalid blocks will be rejected by other nodes.
post canceled due to lack of interest and support.
the problem encountered exists
It doesn't. You made it up because you don't understand how POW consensus ensures that the blockchain can't be tampered with.
the level of hatred
You're confusing your stubbornness with imaginary hatred.
post canceled due to lack of interest and support.
First of all I'm not SMZ but a friend and colleague who works with him and who knows him personally.
You are disingenuous, speaking in the third person. Who is the real author of that unfortunate article? You are here claiming to us that this is supposedly your friend, but the facts show otherwise.
For this reason, the white paper entitled "Dissociative Blockchain Code" talks about the dissociation between the blockchain and the code that must manipulate it.
I see in this, as the author of the article, a big problem that could have repercussions on the entire system that is based on blockchain.
At the moment, you are evading the ban. And instead of okay, resolving the situation, you create a new account and keep pushing about your article.
I think your lies may not be a good sign for you.
post canceled due to lack of interest and support.
~
Stop talking about yourself in third person, stop evading your ban, and read up on Bitcoin consensus instead of making a fool of yourself. There is no problem to be solved here and that has been comprehensively explained to you by users who are much more patient that I am. But if you insist on creating a centralized blockchain with some hardcoded single version of client code or whatever it is that you're proposing - you should do it in the Altcoin section.
post canceled due to lack of interest and support.
Your "friend" posted in Development & Technical Discussion (twice) and Press (once) boards.
Here are the relevant descriptions of those boards, shown at the top of the page so you can't claim you didn't know what you were doing:
Your posts were not about Bitcoin, and a Medium blog post is not "notable". Permaban might be a bit harsh though for three off-topic/spam posts.
Here are the relevant descriptions of those boards, shown at the top of the page so you can't claim you didn't know what you were doing:
Quote
Technical discussion about Satoshi's Bitcoin client and the Bitcoin network in general. No third-party sites/clients, bug reports that do not require much discussion (use github), or support requests.
Quote
Notable press hits.
Your posts were not about Bitcoin, and a Medium blog post is not "notable". Permaban might be a bit harsh though for three off-topic/spam posts.
My friend told me that he tried to appeal, but before he did, there was a warning that the chances of being accepted were almost non-existent, and that's how he talked to me about the matter.
It's definitely true that in cases of plagiarism, the chances of having your account reinstated are slim to none--but this seems like a miscommunication issue if your friend did indeed write that whitepaper, because if that's true then no plagiarism was committed and he shouldn't have been banned. But, without having mentioned that he was the author in his posts, someone probably looked into it and thought it was a copy/paste job, which happens a lot here.I'd suggest your friend start up a ban appeal thread in the Meta section explaining the situation. Mods can be led astray by reports if they look valid, and more often than not when someone reports plagiarism, it really is plagiarism.
Edit: Sorry, I didn't read the last three posts or so in this thread and now I realize you're already going to do what I suggested. Good luck, because I think you (or your friend) have a good case.
If you all agree, I'll change the thread title as LoyceV suggested.
I expect to do it tomorrow, so that if anyone disagrees and doesn't want to get involved, then I won't change the title.
Thanks for any other suggestions or advice you can give on this matter.
I expect to do it tomorrow, so that if anyone disagrees and doesn't want to get involved, then I won't change the title.
Thanks for any other suggestions or advice you can give on this matter.
I ask you on behalf of my friend to support his reinstatement in the forum
In that case you should change the thread title, something like: "Ban appeal for SMZ_".From his posts, it looks like the typical link spammer who copies some text. But from your explanation, it looks like an unintentional mistake.
He appealed, before telling me about the situation.
isaac_clarke22 was able to retrieve the link showing the contents of the threads:
https://loyce.club/archive/members/336/3367517.html
You can judge for yourself whether it was abuse or not.
I ask you on behalf of my friend to support his reinstatement in the forum, if you have a chance to have a voice on this topic.
isaac_clarke22 was able to retrieve the link showing the contents of the threads:
https://loyce.club/archive/members/336/3367517.html
You can judge for yourself whether it was abuse or not.
I ask you on behalf of my friend to support his reinstatement in the forum, if you have a chance to have a voice on this topic.
What exactly does the ban message show? If it's for plagiarism, it's usually mentioned.
IIRC, all the banned messages are similar for all users regardless the reason with a hint to why the user was banned, using the two too reasons for ban. It should look something like this;My friend told me that he tried to appeal, but before he did, there was a warning that the chances of being accepted were almost non-existent
The chances are unlikely, but if they have a strong case, they should go ahead and appeal the ban.
My friend told me that he tried to appeal, but before he did, there was a warning that the chances of being accepted were almost non-existent, and that's how he talked to me about the matter.
He is a bit disappointed with the way the forum rejected him without giving him useful notices for any corrections.
Yet he thought that communicating his white paper where they could understand his arguments was the right choice.
I personally do not find anything wrong with his first thread and I do not understand why the thread was deleted, by an anonymous person, according to what my friend tells me.
Since he thought that an anonymous person could not have the right to silence him, he wrote the other two threads, which led to the final banning.
He is a bit disappointed with the way the forum rejected him without giving him useful notices for any corrections.
Yet he thought that communicating his white paper where they could understand his arguments was the right choice.
I personally do not find anything wrong with his first thread and I do not understand why the thread was deleted, by an anonymous person, according to what my friend tells me.
Since he thought that an anonymous person could not have the right to silence him, he wrote the other two threads, which led to the final banning.
The thread being deleted should have been a strong hint. Creating the same thread again (and again) makes it spam.
Having a link to the rule list would be a good idea for turning the hint into an explanation. You wouldn't even need to have moderators change anything (i.e. adding a reason for deletions) my friend was banned for linking to a very long external article, of which he reposted the initial part: title, summary, index, link.
What exactly does the ban message show? If it's for plagiarism, it's usually mentioned.Quote
their thread has been deleted with no explanation.
Then he tried to reopen another thread with the same content in the same section, and also in another (in doubt that the deletion was due to a wrong destination).
The thread being deleted should have been a strong hint. Creating the same thread again (and again) makes it spam.Then he tried to reopen another thread with the same content in the same section, and also in another (in doubt that the deletion was due to a wrong destination).
Quote
This behavior cost him the definitive and no appeal ban on access!
There's always a possibility to appeal a ban, for instance by creating a topic about it here in Meta. Before doing so, it's probably wise to read the rules.Quote
This leads me to think that the use of links can be an excuse to be banned at any time, depending on how the moderator on duty at that moment thinks! (not necessarily with malice but only for the rush to act!)
Mods are human, they make mistakes. Not often, and usually the spammer deserves it. But if mistakes are made, an appeal will give the case the attention it need to be corrected.
Unfortunately, your friend probably was not directed to the Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ topic.
If they had read these rules, they probably would have been able to follow them. It's too bad - they should have known better.
If they had read these rules, they probably would have been able to follow them. It's too bad - they should have known better.
He did not create the three arguments on the same thing at the same time.
He first opened a thread, which lasted a day, and was closed with no valid arguments.
The next day he opened the other two threads, in two different sections, because he speculated that maybe it was the section that wasn't appropriate and that was why it was deleted.
After this action he was banned definitively and without the possibility of appeal!
So he asked me to support him in this situation where he can do absolutely nothing because he can no longer write or communicate in the forum!
He first opened a thread, which lasted a day, and was closed with no valid arguments.
The next day he opened the other two threads, in two different sections, because he speculated that maybe it was the section that wasn't appropriate and that was why it was deleted.
After this action he was banned definitively and without the possibility of appeal!
So he asked me to support him in this situation where he can do absolutely nothing because he can no longer write or communicate in the forum!
I assume that your friend was banned not for plagiarism, but for spam. Why create three(!) topics about the same thing?
Yes, it's him, and as you can see he really wrote what he told me: title, abstract, index and link.
Maybe he's been portrayed as a plagiarist, but he's the author of that link white paper.
How can it be that what he wrote was enough to determine his ultimate banning?
Isn't there something wrong with that?
Maybe he's been portrayed as a plagiarist, but he's the author of that link white paper.
How can it be that what he wrote was enough to determine his ultimate banning?
Isn't there something wrong with that?
I guess OP's friend is this user SMZ_.
The user only has 3 posts based on the scraped posts - https://loyce.club/archive/members/336/3367517.html
From the scraped post, it seemed like the user copy-pasted a snippet of the medium article including the table of contents. I guess that led to the user's ban?
The user only has 3 posts based on the scraped posts - https://loyce.club/archive/members/336/3367517.html
From the scraped post, it seemed like the user copy-pasted a snippet of the medium article including the table of contents. I guess that led to the user's ban?
My friend is also the author of the white paper he was referring to in his thread which has been deleted, but perhaps this has not been understood and has been mistaken for plagiarism.
Now, my friend who is the author of a white paper gets banned for trying to communicate his study of him to the community!
Isn't that a bit of a Kafkaesque situation?
I don't put links because they can be misinterpreted, but I can give the title of the white paper that you can find with google:
"Associative Blockchain Code", by SMZ.
Now, my friend who is the author of a white paper gets banned for trying to communicate his study of him to the community!
Isn't that a bit of a Kafkaesque situation?
I don't put links because they can be misinterpreted, but I can give the title of the white paper that you can find with google:
"Associative Blockchain Code", by SMZ.
It is reasonable that this is the case, but my friend was banned for linking to a very long external article, of which he reposted the initial part: title, summary, index, link.
First to say that this "asking for friend" thing always make me chuckle. 
Now that you mentioned that "your friend" get banned for reposting a very long article, did he just copy/pasted whole artile and just shared link at the bottom, without providing own comment on the matter? I am asking because someone might report it for being a low quality post, which it is if it was made that way.
By the way, what's your "friend" username? Posts are archived here so we should be able to see the post that got him banned?
Without knowing more specifically about the case, we can't say more, but as you have been told, the most normal thing is that he was spamming. I don't think that a simple referral link will get you banned.
You can tell your "friend" to look in the email inbox, where there is usually a quote of the deleted post to post it here so we can analyze it better.
I usually post a lot of links too and I've never been banned for that.
No way.
You can tell your "friend" to look in the email inbox, where there is usually a quote of the deleted post to post it here so we can analyze it better.
I usually post a lot of links too and I've never been banned for that.
This leads me to think that the use of links can be an excuse to be banned at any time, depending on how the moderator on duty at that moment thinks! (not necessarily with malice but only for the rush to act!)
No way.
It is reasonable that this is the case, but my friend was banned for linking to a very long external article, of which he reposted the initial part: title, summary, index, link.
Now, this seems like a fair way to communicate and cannot be mistaken for abuse, yet their thread has been deleted with no explanation.
Then he tried to reopen another thread with the same content in the same section, and also in another (in doubt that the deletion was due to a wrong destination).
This behavior cost him the definitive and no appeal ban on access!
So it seems that there is something wrong and that there may be abuse by the moderators (not necessarily out of nastiness, but also just for the rush of a decision)!
This leads me to think that the use of links can be an excuse to be banned at any time, depending on how the moderator on duty at that moment thinks! (not necessarily with malice but only for the rush to act!)
Now, this seems like a fair way to communicate and cannot be mistaken for abuse, yet their thread has been deleted with no explanation.
Then he tried to reopen another thread with the same content in the same section, and also in another (in doubt that the deletion was due to a wrong destination).
This behavior cost him the definitive and no appeal ban on access!
So it seems that there is something wrong and that there may be abuse by the moderators (not necessarily out of nastiness, but also just for the rush of a decision)!
This leads me to think that the use of links can be an excuse to be banned at any time, depending on how the moderator on duty at that moment thinks! (not necessarily with malice but only for the rush to act!)
~
Well yes it is possible, OP, in fact you must as what others mentioned above. Adding up all the points above, I would advice to use [url] tag when the link is a really really long one and just insert title of your source in between the tags, especially if the link is outside the forum.
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 4282
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
Your friend most have been banned for spamming the forum with referral contents (links) or malicious ones as highlighted by Upgrade00, the forum doesn't ban for just posting a link. Infact it's mandatory to input a link source if the content you're posting was gotten from an online source that's why there's a possiblity of inserting a link in the options.
Again I doubt this to be true but can you drop the supposed link to your other account (your friends account) let it be reviewed and the cause of your banned will be told.
It is reasonable that this is the case, but my friend was banned for linking to a very long external article, of which he reposted the initial part: title, summary, index, link.
Again I doubt this to be true but can you drop the supposed link to your other account (your friends account) let it be reviewed and the cause of your banned will be told.
It is not against the rules to insert links into a thread, I have done that a lot. It's only against the rules when it's done with malicious intent (lik a malware), solely to advertise a site (like a referral link), if they used link shorteners, or if you're spamming the forum with links to a particular website.
Should the moderator who decides to ban for the presence of a link notify the OP of the fact?
Moderators already have a lot of work, notifying members of rules they should have read isn't one of them.
If you want to refer to an external article is it possible to insert the link without being banned as happened to a friend?
If it is not possible to insert a link without being banned, why is there the possibility to insert links in the options?
Should the moderator who decides to ban for the presence of a link notify the OP of the fact?
If it is not possible to insert a link without being banned, why is there the possibility to insert links in the options?
Should the moderator who decides to ban for the presence of a link notify the OP of the fact?
Jump to: