We all know that if you wear a paid sig you are treated differently (rightfully so). I agree he needs to not post so many times in a row, but I do not think he did so for more sig pay. I am sure after his 2 week ban he will change how he posts.
This is why I prefer flat rate campaigns for everyone (I have been flat rate for years now).
Topic: My account SebastianJu banned for 14 days now? - page 4. (Read 5876 times)
What's there not to understand? Like me, he posts on this forum because he wants to. Like me he wants to get paid for that, because why wouldn't you? It's a way of supporting the bitcoin economy and it is a feature that I've never seen on any other forum, that is, renting out signature space. I don't know how sig campaigns came into existence, but it seems a little unfair that people who make quality posts get criticized for participating in them. They are, either explicitly or implicitly, endorsed by Theymos.
I have no problem whatsoever with signature campaigns. As I've said in other threads, it's a neat concept and seems to be unique to bct. It's the people who shitpost that ruin it for everyone else
I have no problem whatsoever with signature campaigns. As I've said in other threads, it's a neat concept and seems to be unique to bct. It's the people who shitpost that ruin it for everyone else
One of the most trust worthy escrows in the forum gets banned for signature spam, classy. :p
And the guy who recently had some troubles with him comes up to twist the knife in the wound, surprising.Hey, I ain't twistin' any knifes here. Don't you find it funny that a guy who claims to have escrowed 8k bitcoins was spamming for a signature campaign? I do.
One of the most trust worthy escrows in the forum gets banned for signature spam, classy. :p
And the guy who recently had some troubles with him comes up to twist the knife in the wound, surprising.
One of the most trust worthy escrows in the forum gets banned for signature spam, classy. :p
Or Grue/BadBear/Theymos and maybe even HilarousAndCo. I can only do so much.
I'm not fully aware of the fineprint of the english language so did you mean that you sent them a pm? If not could you do so?
Thanks in advance!
I think he meant he can only help up to his level best. On regards the un-banning, only Grue/BadBar/Theymos/HilariousAndCo can do something about it.
Or Grue/BadBear/Theymos and maybe even HilarousAndCo. I can only do so much.
I'm not fully aware of the fineprint of the english language so did you mean that you sent them a pm? If not could you do so?
Thanks in advance!
Regarding prevision... ah no, you wrote you are accused of being an alt of Quickseller, you are online all the time too, being a scambuster and all and today I wrote about why I did not trust all of his negative ratings. Forbid me the thought that your prevision was led by knowledge maybe. I only thought of the possibility, no accusation.
I think it is kinda ridiculous to imply that your ban had anything to do with you (subtlety) speaking out against me, similar to how I think it is ridiculous to imply that I give negative trust to anyone who speaks out against me......do you have any idea how many people troll me on a regular basis -- a lot, and a good number of them have never received negative trust from me, although a lot of them are scammers, and were tagged by me in the past -- just because you troll me does not give you a free pass in being a scammer. The reason for your ban was written on the ban message, it is because you made excessive consecutive messages with a paid signature. The key word here is excessive. Sure, it might be helpful to separate responses between multiple posts, however when a good number of the responses are responding to things that is really no longer relevant to the conversation, and when some of the responses are responding to a post that someone already responded to, one would probably consider the double post (or quadruple post) excessive. If you are going to make a 2nd consecutive post, there should be a good reason why you are making a second post, and the second post should add a lot more to the conversation then the 1st post, the same is true for the 3rd post, as the third post should add a lot more to the conversation then the 2nd post (which should have added more to the conversation then the 1st) -- it will probably be fairly rare that it is actually appropriate to make three consecutive posts. You also should probably not respond to the same person across two posts, even if you are responding to two different threads.
There is also the issue of having a paid signature. A paid signature means that you have an incentive to make additional posts and this will (or at least should) be taken into account.
SebastianJu, you were temporarily banned because you kept making multiple posts in a row, which that could have been posted in one. You have been warned about this before and having a paid signature doesn't help.
I remember telling him the same , sometime after Nov. apparently he didn't get the message. Anyway, the temp-ban... work of grue I suppose?
it's all about the sig. ad (nothing else).
Yep, oh the freedom us non-camapigners have... 
SebastianJu, you were temporarily banned because you kept making multiple posts in a row, which that could have been posted in one. You have been warned about this before and having a paid signature doesn't help.
I remember telling him the same , sometime after Nov. apparently he didn't get the message. 
So we have one rule for one and one for another.
People in a signature campaign = spammer and scammer (by default)
People not in a signature campaign = trusted person (by default)
People in a signature campaign = spammer and scammer (by default)
People not in a signature campaign = trusted person (by default)
Answered right above by shorena:
Signature or not the rules are the same, but if you have to judge the reason why someone does what they do its more likely that the reason will be "for sig payments" if they have a paid signature. IIRC doog (probably never had a paid sig) was warned not to post like this as well.
Responded to by shorena, but not necessarily answered.
Dooglus does carry a promotional sig, the fact that it belongs to his business is irrelevant to this discussion. Multiple posting means multiple signature exposure.
If a carrying/not carrying a promotional signature is not a factor, then how come Gleb gets away with chronic consecutive posting when he is in full flow?
Exactly, if you don't have nothing to promote (personal business ,etcc ..) that's not a problem
so it is not against the forum rules. 
So we have one rule for one and one for another.
People in a signature campaign = spammer and scammer (by default)
People not in a signature campaign = trusted person (by default)
People in a signature campaign = spammer and scammer (by default)
People not in a signature campaign = trusted person (by default)
Answered right above by shorena:
Signature or not the rules are the same, but if you have to judge the reason why someone does what they do its more likely that the reason will be "for sig payments" if they have a paid signature. IIRC doog (probably never had a paid sig) was warned not to post like this as well.
Responded to by shorena, but not necessarily answered.
Dooglus does carry a promotional sig, the fact that it belongs to his business is irrelevant to this discussion. Multiple posting means multiple signature exposure.
If a carrying/not carrying a promotional signature is not a factor, then how come Gleb gets away with chronic consecutive posting when he is in full flow?
When I first started reading this thread I was going to tell SebastianJu to just drop the signature,but he makes a valid point about the owner of the site. If you are running a business in a section I think it is important to be able to respond to any queries and imagine it could be hard wrapping them all into one or two posts.
Maybe it should be something that is earned for certain accounts.
The signature issue between those that have and those that do not really should not even be a aspect here.
Its a issue but I do not think it relates to this thread as much as not being able to post multiple replies.
Maybe it should be something that is earned for certain accounts.
The signature issue between those that have and those that do not really should not even be a aspect here.
Its a issue but I do not think it relates to this thread as much as not being able to post multiple replies.
So we have one rule for one and one for another.
People in a signature campaign = spammer and scammer (by default)
People not in a signature campaign = trusted person (by default)
Answered right above by shorena:People in a signature campaign = spammer and scammer (by default)
People not in a signature campaign = trusted person (by default)
Signature or not the rules are the same, but if you have to judge the reason why someone does what they do its more likely that the reason will be "for sig payments" if they have a paid signature. IIRC doog (probably never had a paid sig) was warned not to post like this as well.
So I've read through the thread, and the discussion of the ban reasoning. It's been mentioned that users can be banned for consecutive posting with a paid signature, but not without a paid signature. Can we have any confirmation from a staff member that this is the case? If this is the case, why wouldn't this rule apply to all users regardless of if they're wearing a paid signature or not? Consecutive posts like Mitchell posted as examples seem to clog up discussions on the forum, and it's so easy to put all of them into a single post.
So we have one rule for one and one for another.
People in a signature campaign = spammer and scammer (by default)
People not in a signature campaign = trusted person (by default)
I see many people that I would call signature spammers that I then realised don't have signatures! It should be the same rule for everyone, and you shouldn't make consecutive posts in the same forum. At least answer a few quotes at the end of the thread at tat point or reply to each of he messages as they come.
So I've read through the thread, and the discussion of the ban reasoning. It's been mentioned that users can be banned for consecutive posting with a paid signature, but not without a paid signature. Can we have any confirmation from a staff member that this is the case? If this is the case, why wouldn't this rule apply to all users regardless of if they're wearing a paid signature or not? Consecutive posts like Mitchell posted as examples seem to clog up discussions on the forum, and it's so easy to put all of them into a single post.
Signature or not the rules are the same, but if you have to judge the reason why someone does what they do its more likely that the reason will be "for sig payments" if they have a paid signature. IIRC doog (probably never had a paid sig) was warned not to post like this as well.
Here my old thread about "multiple posts in a row":
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-simple-question-is-it-against-the-forum-rules-make-double-posting-1022225
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-simple-question-is-it-against-the-forum-rules-make-double-posting-1022225
So I've read through the thread, and the discussion of the ban reasoning. It's been mentioned that users can be banned for consecutive posting with a paid signature, but not without a paid signature. Can we have any confirmation from a staff member that this is the case? If this is the case, why wouldn't this rule apply to all users regardless of if they're wearing a paid signature or not? Consecutive posts like Mitchell posted as examples seem to clog up discussions on the forum, and it's so easy to put all of them into a single post.
@Seb_Ju sorry didnt fully read your entire last message, but you can change your signature to state that you are temp banned and that you should be contacted via e.g. an email address for the escrow. IIRC thats the way marco did it and it did not break the rules nor did it prolong the ban.
Seems like sig campaigns are the only way to make money from your own sig space. Mine is a black hole.
Jump to: