Topic: Crumbs, Hashfast, and ban. - page 2. (Read 2920 times)

Well, quite honestly, the mods aren't trying to gain the approval of the users, I'd say the fact that out of 200,000 accounts, there are only a handful of, "OMG MY ACCOUNT WAS BANNED WRONGFULLY" threads is actually rather impressive. As far as reasons for bans, more often than not, a user knows what they are getting banned for. We might not take the time to explain it to a 8 hour old account that has spammed up 50 posts, or to someone who is posting malware, but besides that, there is very infrequently a case where people are just banned.

I say it whenever it comes up, getting banned here is actually quite an acomplishment. You can insult the forum owner and not get banned, you can use whatever language you want (within reason). How many other forums can say the same? Really, the only ways you can get banned are, 1) Malware, self explanatory. 2) Excessive spamming, if you are a new account that has done nothing but spammed, you are at higher risk, however if you have been around and you post off topic, or go on a bender, you will be warned, those posts removed, and you are free to go on your way. 3) "Trolling" again, thats another one with a really high threshold. Like crumbs for example, he was warned multiple times and given temporary bans, because he did have good information throughout his posts so he was cut some slack.

Besides very very serious behavior that is undeniably stupid, and if you don't understand why you are getting banned for it, you have no reason having access to plastic bags let alone the internet; the forums are pretty tolerant of reasonable behavior or mistakes that will eventually get your account banned if you ignore a handful of warnings.

I could see that being abused for some stupid reasons.

People could think its cool to have a banned account, or a large number of them.

Same here

BTW, crumbs' thread is poppin', since the official thread is being astroturfed moderated so nicely.  HashFast are choirboys compared to that fiasco.
Active Mining investors fleeced of millions by an illiterate alcoholic.
This miracle of Bitcoin Finance wouldn't be possible without your help.

How about the following ones:
- It would show that there is a real "trial" before a perma-ban
- It would let people get a glimpse at the work you actually do (I've been a mod too, and know this is a lot of work, but some people don't).
- It would help making the "mods are nazis" people shut up.
- It would help us understanding the reasons that led to that ban(*)

Of course, private complains appearing in the thread should be anonymized first.

(*)I, for one, really appreciated crumbs posts, but I mostly read them on the hashfast related threads. I beleive you when you say he was too disruptive on other threads, but I had to ask to understand, as I didn't really have time to parse his post history (and trolling ones would have been already deleted, as you pointed)

Anyway, cheers for you answers, I understand this is not going to happen and won't up this post anymore.

We do discuss it, however in private, as it is a confidential process. We don't just spin a wheel, and whoever an arrow on it points to is who we ban. Moderators from different boards put together evidence supporting their reasoning for bans. Those include threads/comments the accused have made, as well as private reports from individuals. I don't think there is a single benefit to having that information public. The person who reports the accused in the first place wouldn't be safe, evidence gathered could be tampered with as soon as the person finds out what evidence is being used against them, and most of all, why does the public need to know? Having transparency in the forum's funds is one thing, so people know that money they have donated hasn't been spent on hookers and blow by Theymos. The entire business is between who is being banned, and those making the decision. That comes in the form of private warnings and ban appeals.


Baaadbearrrr, we agreed to keep that a secret  

*Edit* However I think it would be neat if it said, "Banned" on someone's account profile if they were banned.

As a fellow businessman, I must voice my concern with your reckless and haphazard stewardship of my forum.

Banning immature, disruptive scum, though well-intentioned, has proved itself worse than ineffective.  For each banned account, hundreds of throwaway accounts - each one buthurt - spring up like mushrooms to sperge all over this august establishment.  My colleague confided the filthy hooligans enjoy being banned

I sympathise with your motives, and concur that this forum needs to be made hospitable for budding entrepreneurs.  My clients must feel protected to best ply their trade.  They must be made safe to feast on their prey without undue interference.  It is your methods, Sir, that i find fault with.

Sincerely Yours,
~Account Management Team.

My previous post was not that clear.
What would be great when someone is perma-banned, is that you make the mod thread where I suppose you discussed about this, public.

And about Salty, well, I do think it's also my business (I used his escrow services and would like to know I dealt with such a character ).

As for this, while I can appreciate you wanting to see more transparency, fact of the matter is you won't have access to the information you need to make an informed decision, so it would be a waste of everyone's time. You likely won't be able to see what they were banned for, as it's been deleted. Even if you did see it you would be missing the context, or it isn't even anything specific, more of a straw that broke the camel's back situation, or it's from something in pms, etc. You would also be missing information about previous warnings, bans, previously deleted posts (which count as a warning in some cases).

Also there's the privacy issue, if Salty gets banned for repeatedly posting granny porn, is that really any of your business? Or is it between us and them?

He was given consideration many times, I even took the time to give him yet another warning instead of banning him before actually banning him when he continued. How many warnings should one get before banning? 8? 9? 20? How much time do we need to waste before it's clear that it's a waste of time?

I liked crumbs, he brought up good points often, but he couldn't help but troll and disrupt conversations at the same time. It's too bad really. 

Ok, I understand you had some good reasons to perm-ban him.

Now, if I was to ask for a thread asking for operators to post some evidences (and quotes of private discussions) before permanently banning someone, so you can just have a peaceful feedback, would that be too much, too?

I'd just like to be able to check the trial report when I realize someone's been banned for ever.

It wasn't his preventive, positive posts that got him banned. I watched crumbs very closely, and agree he brought up good points from time to time, but the majority of his posts were incredibly disruptive. While some dubious alts do indeed only get a temp ban, so did Crumbs. This was the second time that he was banned, that I know of anyway, there could have been other bans.

Thanks for the answer, and I mean it.
But how come some preventive, positive - although "misprestended" (raw translation from french, not sure it is understandable.... maybe "ill-served"? "hateful"? - action can get you a perm-ban when some dubious alts only get a temp one?
Any way you could reconsider crumbs, please?

Cause if hateful, that was rightful.

Crumbs was banned for his "activities" in the Activemining thread. He wasn't alone, although, but I believe he is the only one to get a permanent ban, as he had been temporarily banned before.

Crumbs - which I have absolutely no connection to, not even a single PM - have been trolling hashfast threads quite steadily.
Intention was pure, intuition was right on spot, presentation was alternatively hillarious (come on, the ponys!) and very conspirationnist.
But overall, he was right, tried to warn people in his own way.
If he's been banned, I really am sad.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/crumbs-127503

He might have kept more people away from this scam, would he have not been shut down.
I dislike censorship just a tad less than scammership.

But I hate both.