Topic: My proposal to forum administration (Read 2431 times)

 
Agreed.


Agreed


Agreed

Touche.

I agree.There was no point in dragging the meaningless thread to almost 5 pages if not for his signature campaign. Apparently,he makes the most out of his campaign.

No one forces you to post here

I could just as easily claim that you are basically trying to troll and hijack the thread in some really nasty way (you'd better explain how you managed to trash 1,000 threads of forum users on your own), but I don't particularly care since it is not up to me to judge or decide. Anyway, if you consider this thread as a spammy one you should, first, stop posting in it yourself (which seems to be obvious), and, second, report on me being a "genuine spammer" (provided you really think so). Though I don't know whom you are going to report to since both theymos and hilarious seem to think different somehow (well, at least I think so). If anyone thinks along the same lines as Lauda, I guess you should just stop posting here as well. Otherwise, it would be a bit hypocritical if you continue to raise the thread you hate so much. In any case, real spam should get deleted, not replied to, as simple as it gets


You are just severely uninformed (but that would be as severely off-topic)


It cuts both ways, which you seem to forget

The moment I said:


I realized that it is meaningless to argue with the OP, deisik, since he don't have what it takes to start a logical argument. Anyone who had read the thread would surely understand what I'm saying. At that moment, I had foreseen that the argument would end like this and I'm right!

I'd expect that the participants and the readers of this thread had already figured out that deisik is a "genuine spammer". This thread was created solely due to his campaign earnings.

The only right course of action would be to ban him from his campaign.

Your whole thread has been obliterated. Either learn to admit being wrong, derive a better argument(s) or go spam somewhere else now.

Just curious what I see here. deisik there is no doubt you opened this thread because of lost posts in signature campaign (because everything starts from coinroll sig thread).
I read some of your previous post and please answer me, what negative effect did bitcoin economy get from deleting some old threads? If you really care so much about bitcoin, than why did your talk start from coinroll's thread?
Not only moderators started vendetta against you but theymos and even satoshi tries everything to get you down, haha.
Don't act like bitcoin lover, you are money lover and that's all, even from 2013 it seems how you "hate" campaigns, just see your sent trusts. Everytime trust is because of campaign payment. You can't hide trust.

This thread is made because you only carries about your campaign, there is no doubt. If not, just leave sig forwvwr and do your best in bitcoin economy developing. (you won't do this in your entire life).
Truth is trusth, we can't hide it in most cases.

What's the difference between a Frenchman and a Jew?

The Frenchman leaves without saying goodbye, and the Jew says goodbye but never leaves (while the Russian never says goodbye and never leaves). I guess you shouldn't have come here in the first place. At first you were trying to victimize me, then flip-flopped and tried to make a victim out of yourself. Playing someone is right about fooling everyone else into thinking that you are not who or what you are. Further, your whole message (as quoted in my post above) is meaningless since people are complaining about their posts deleted irrespective of whether they post for free or for a remuneration. The latter just adds more injury to the insult. I guess even outright shitposters like the dude above wouldn't be quite happy to see their posts removed for no reason at all (though in the latter case the reason should be pretty obvious). That's why discussing anything with you was an exercise in futility right from the start. I hope this could help you see some light at last and finally find some piece of mind


So instead of actual posting you were just busy removing other posters' threads and kinda trashed like 1,000 threads during the times of your moderation? Good for you! That's what I call a hardcore moderation, lol. But somehow I am not surprised at all. I'm just curious how many threads would get deleted if it were reflected in your post count too



Well, now I start to understand theymos

Can we just ban sig campaigns please? 

Sig campaigns are like donations to sub sahara Africa. It just makes the situation worst for the people.

Anyway deisik is an idiot whom you cant have a discussion with.
He always sidesteps arguments and changes topics.

Perhaps I am trying to play the victim, though I don't believe I am 'fooling' anyone with it. There is nothing for me to fool anyone with. I've made my point of view extremely clear, and yet you disregard both it and me by telling me I am trying to mislead people.
However, if anything it shows that you have nothing to back up your argument with. Thank you for making that clear.

I don't believe that I was misleading anything or anyone by posting my opinion on why you're making this thread. Saying that I think you're doing this simply out of greed does not constitute as me trying to 'twist the facts'.
In addition, the discussion that I was looking for is exactly what happened. You gave me your point of view, and I gave you mine. I wished that it could have ended differently, but such is.

I can now see that I will be wasting my time trying to discuss things like adults with you, so I will simply leave you to your own little bubble. Best of luck with your proposal.

As to me, you are doing exactly that

Right now you are obviously trying to play a victim here, but I can only repeat to you what I just told Lauda, I'm not that kind of person who can be easily fooled with such tactics. After all, you are free to leave at any moment if you feel insulted or anything to that tune. No one is forcing you to post here, and I certainly won't miss you (good riddance). Other than that, I will just quote below your first post in this thread (just in case you choose to change it), so that anyone could check and decide for themselves whether you are misleading others and what kind of discussion you are really looking for (this is not intended as an offense but exclusively for the sake of fairness):


I don't know how that could be interpreted as a "viewpoint" which I should listen to. I sincerely hope you won't mind me leaving this quote here


You can pack up and go home too

"Let's cut the crap" -> proceeds to post ad hominem because your argument had been destroyed. Very indulging my young padawan. It does not seem like they teach logic at your school.

I don't care about your interpretation of what Lauda is saying, but don't accuse me of twisting facts. I've done nothing but tell (what I know as) the truth about forum moderation and how I feel it should be done. If I am wrong about anything I'm happy to be corrected by someone who knows what they're talking about.

If you're not able to listen to my viewpoint and discuss it with me without insulting me and trying to make it out as if I'm trying to mislead you and others, you shouldn't be on a space where people don't agree with you. Try going to your local church, if you're lucky there will be an echo big enough so you can hear what you want to.

---

IIRC shorena linked it to you when you rejoined the forum, but here it is again.

I believe everything there is to be discussed about this proposal is already discussed. Is there any reason to continue this discussion?


When did that happen? Can someone give me a link to a detailed thread(if any)?

Let's cut the crap here

You may twist the facts as much as you want with your buddy minifrij but you were a moderator (by whatever name), and you were kicked for doing something which a moderator is not allowed to do (and what many mods still do at every other forum out there). I don't know the details of that story since I'm not very much interested in such stories in general (maybe, you had some reason behind your actions after all, I don't know). But personally, to me, blackmailing someone (as it was rumored) is a lot heavier "crime" than just stealthily deleting posts of some user which you may not quite like (heck, that might be a real crime that could put you in a real jail). So please don't tell me about "the opposite of normalcy bias", I'm not that kind of person (I don't know what you meant to say anyway)

Precisely. As I mentioned earlier, you can avoid your theoretical situation happening (by anyone other than a Global Moderator or Administrator) by avoiding the sections moderated by the staff member you do not trust. However, if you do not trust the staff to do their jobs properly it is questionable whether you should be on the forum at all.

---

I believe Mitchell lost more than you, did he not?

It's related to the Moved threads. I have often not left them, but due to my high activity whilst moderating their count must have been high.

Jurisdiction means: Section that they moderate. If you look closely, a single moderator couldn't do much in his "personal vendetta" conquest.

It has never happened, and in expectancy of it happening once we should do this? Seems to be the opposite of normalcy bias.

I'm also utterly curious how you managed to get so many non-existent posts


I'm afraid that this is not the case

I don't know if that's true (though I think it is), but, according to hilarious, "all staff can delete or trashcan a thread as long as it is in their jurisdiction". So it seems that this is not as theoretical as you want it to appear. In fact, I don't see anything wrong with preventing such situations from happening before they actually come about since everything happens for the first time one day. Basically, it is just a matter of time. I guess when Satoshi started this forum, he couldn't even imagine that it would become a source of income for so many people. I don't mean just sig campaigners, you should also include here campaign managers, people advertising their services, and even moderators themselves (and I don't know whom else)

This was in reply to your theoretical situation where a moderator would go on a streak of deleting one user's posts specifically due to a personal vendetta. That quote was also in regards to Lauda being promoted to a Global Moderator.

What you said was that posts in a necrod thread were deleted, not the theoretical situation you came up with (This isn't the same as what I was replying to in the first point). I tried to later clarify this.

Which is true. As it is not the theoretical situation that you were talking about (which I tried to point out to you by asking you the questions that you ignored), it is completely fine for a moderator to do what they feel as most appropriate when dealing with posts made on a necrod thread.

Which is what will happen on this forum, regardless of what nobodies such as you and I think about it. This isn't my personal stance, this is outlining that we have very little say in what goes on with the moderation.

---

To make my stance absolutely crystal clear to you, I think that your theoretical situation (that I will quote here):
is extremely improbable to ever happen. In the example that you gave (Lauda's extortion), the subject (Lauda) would have been unable to carry out said theoretical due to their status as only a staff member (Not a Global Moderator). In the very rare event that this would happen, I would not condone this and would rally for the moderator behind it to be removed from their position of power. I would not rally for important tools to be removed from use.

I think that it is absolutely fine for necrod posts to be removed from the forum by moderators, providing that they don't give anything useful to the conversation (which they usually don't, whether it be useless spam, an answer to a question that has already been answered or a number of other factors). I would then agree with you that, if these spam posts have been removed, the thread should be locked to prevent any further spam.

I think that it is absolutely fine for spam threads (such as those mentioned by hilariousandco here):
to be completely removed regardless of their age or the amount of posts in them.

Finally, regardless of what you and I think, moderators will do whatever they see fit when it comes to moderating the forum and there is very little that you or I can do about it.

Hope you can follow this.

Sounds like you're not on the winning side of an argument.

Damage to account farmers, signature spammers and the people who cry when their post count goes down?

Number of times that this has happened: 0. The value of solving issues which do not exist is, exactly 0.

It is irrelevant for me, but I wonder whether I am the person who lost the most amount (absolute wise, not percentage wise).

They are certainly allowed, but they risk not being taken seriously if they flip-flop a bit too often


As to me, your proposal to introduce the "banned" rank is simply incomparable

In respect to the amount of devastation and damage that it would have caused and made if it had been accepted. As I told, I don't see any reason in deleting old threads apart from a rogue moderator starting a vendetta against a certain user. To avoid this, old threads should get locked after they remain inactive for a specified amount of time. As I also mentioned, I have seen users punished just for raising a necrothread (namely, all the new posts to this thread got deleted and these posts were no spam by any means). Locking such threads after some expire period would effectively prevent this (if necroraising is not allowed)


Enjoy the pain as they would say. It's not a big deal anyway, right? After all, "the forum doesn't owe you a living"

People are not allowed to change their stance on an on-going discussion? Please tell me more.

You may want to read your comments and my replies again

Basically, you at first claimed one thing, namely, that it is impossible to happen ("using scenarios that didn't happen and likely wouldn't happen"). When I told that it already happened (ask hilarious if you doubt my words), you changed your stance 180 degrees and started claiming that "they [moderators] thought it would be more appropriate". Then you again all of a sudden changed your position basically trashing your previous stance (that moderators know it better and no further questions should be asked). I think you understand there is no sense in discussing the matter any more on my part. You can try to shift your stance as much and as often as you please, but do it elsewhere. Hope this helps

Are we supposed to feel sorry for you?

It may be *good* to know which thread was trashed/deleted. Should you know who trashed/deleted it? No. If moderators are risking to get publicly crucified for every decision, they may be reluctant to make one thus making their overall moderation worse.

This proposal is one of the worst that I've seen so far. This will never work (unless theymos promotes a few more admins that actually respond to all sensible PMs), nor is there a reason to do so.

Ouch. My post count tanked by ~1000 due to this?

I'm not sure what you mean by a no-op, but locking the thread doesn't combat the signature spam in any way. It is essentially telling people 'if you spam fast enough, you can spam and nothing will happen'.

Tough luck? The chances of there being a non-spammy post on a thread like 'if bitcoin went to $1 what would you do!!!' are incredibly low anyway.

Yes.

I've been critical of the moderation team in the past for this, however if you are expecting that to happen here after all this time you are being too idealistic. If we're living in the real world, deleting the spam eventually is better than accepting it simply because it is 'old', and is much more likely to happen.
Also, entire threads aren't deleted unless they are majority spam. I haven't got a clue where you get the idea that anything else happens from.

You gave no context. Learn to structure your writing better if this is the case.

Wrong. Just because something isn't punished doesn't then change the definition of it.
If I throw litter on the street and it is not moved, does that then mean that I wasn't littering?

Every example of a thread I have used has existed previously. You should probably pay more attention to reading rather than posting if you don't think this is the case.

I'm struggling to follow what you are saying, but I'm guessing that you mean deleting threads would cause people to do what you are doing currently. In this scenario, just like you have, they will be told to deal with it.

They shouldn't, and therefore they aren't. Spam threads, regardless of their age, should be deleted along with all spam posts in them.

I think that our different uses of language has made us both confused about what we are talking about. Let me summarize what I understood from the last few points relating to this so that we can possibly understand each other better.

• You said that necroposts were deleted when you felt they shouldn't have been.
• I said that if the staff saw it as appropriate, the posts should have been deleted.
• You then tried to relate said posts to a theoretical situation you came up with previously.
• I gave you a number of questions to try and clear up whether these deleted posts fit within said theoretical situation. I also reaffirmed that, regardless of what you and I think or propose, the staff's decision would be final.
• Instead of answering the questions, you now say that I am back peddling.

Please correct me if I was wrong at any part here, though to me it just seems that you're just avoiding the point.

---

I see, my apologies.

I am referring to my post not the quoted part. I had just put a horizontal line to designate it. Sorry for the confusion. Just quoted it to emphasize the given solution to the thread's suggestion or whatever.

EDIT: a closing remark to be precise.

So just locking the thread is a no-op?

If so, what about those non-spammy posts in it? These will get deleted too, as far as I can see? Did you ever wonder that it is a moderator's job to delete spam posts as fast as possible so that it never comes to deleting the whole thread (provided it wasn't a spam thread right from the start)? In the OP I meant specifically the threads that are no longer posted in, i.e. necrothreads (I thought it was evident from the context). The threads that are still active and old at that cannot be spammy by definition (as a whole, apart from individual posts), so they are just out of question altogether (it's no use trying to concoct impossible combinations here as it better suits your point), while deleting them would raise a lot of noise on their own. There were a few long threads about Gold vs Bitcoin, and they all had been locked, with only one remaining open. In short, I mean non-spammy abandoned threads created months if not years ago. Why should they ever get deleted and not locked (if necroraising is disallowed)?


Wow, now it's no longer "they thought it would be more appropriate". I guess you are already past the point of back-pedaling this issue. But you may still ask hilarious (if you are really curious)

If an old thread is full of spam and people using it for nothing other than to boost their account's post count/signature earnings, it is appropriate for a thread to be deleted in order to make it more difficult for those who used the thread for that purpose to fulfill it.

Regarding the bolded part, that is irrelevant. You talked about old threads in the OP, not necessarily those that have been necrod. Old threads included those mentioned by hilariousandco that he deleted. You can see what I feel about necro posts in my last post in this thread:
Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Whoopsy daisy.

Unless the rules have changed since that old spam thread was created, making it no longer appropriate to be available.

See my first point.

While any thread on the forum is open, it is susceptible for spam to be posted in it. Therefore, every thread on the forum should be locked and no new threads should be allowed to be made.

That using scenarios that didn't happen (and likely wouldn't happen) in order to push an agenda is silly. By making up my own random story, I hoped to show that.

Were the posts deleted in these threads posted by more than one person/account? Were the posts deleted in these threads of any actual quality, meaning they added something to the discussion? Was the act of these posts being deleted a single isolated incident? If you answered yes to any of these questions, the act doesn't line up with your theoretical and thus this is a moot point.

In addition, the acts that happen on this forum (with and without your proposal) are always open to a moderator or admin's discretion. Whatever an administrator or moderator thinks would be most appropriate is what would happen, whether you or I think it is right or not. I don't see what argument you're trying to make here.

The answer to this really depends on what you mean by here.

If you're referring to this thread, I'm trying to make it clear why your suggestions are silly and are for nothing other than to benefit your own income.
If you're referring to the forum, it is because I enjoy posting here and discussing things with members that I would otherwise be unable to. I have met a number of people that I trust and respect through this forum, and I would like to continue trying to find said people and enjoying myself.

---

First of all, I will say the same thing to you:


Your question has already been answered.

---

It's impossible to lock every old threads just because it can be "resurrected". There are many reasons for a thread to be bumbed, though people create new threads normally. And, hilariousandco has already said *only* trashy threads are deleted. If it is a good old thread and was spammed, only spam posts are deleted and maybe locked too!


Your post is deleted *only* if it is spam. If it trashy thread, it is deleted and posts in it go along with it to the trashcan. But in your opinion, you shouldn't blame even if the post is spam and shouldn't hold users accounted for it?

#its_all_mods_fault  #Power_abusing

Truly. That's why I am kinda disappointed when his intention in creating this thread has shown its true colors. I thought he was just like curious but then again it is because of his signature campaign. Well personally, I do not care if my posts are deleted since it happens to me like I reply to a topic saying that it has been posted with a link then the OP would delete the thread or maybe a mod then that's it. There are also some cases where I don't know what was deleted but it is the least of my concerns. I can quote some who also feels this way.



And these guys don't even make a big fuss from it.


Making a big fuss because his signature campaign earnings are reduced. Going through economy and whatsoever. Oh I almost forgot that he also goes through my imaginary wife since I don't have one.

---

---

Ok bye.  

Give me just one reason why deleting an old, long abandoned thread is better than simply locking it

You won't be able to name even one (apart from purely technical issues such as lack of disk space, etc). If there is an old spam thread, it pretty much means that it had been a mod's fault not to delete it right away. Anyway, just locking it would suffice. Further, I'm myself against raising necrothreads, but if they are left open, mods should expect that they might be and one day will be resurrected, and there is absolutely no reason to blame folks for doing that (let alone delete their posts in these threads)


I don't understand where you are getting at and how it is relevant to this topic


Oh, I remember that at first, you claimed that I talk only about what could (theoretically) happen (meaning that it might not happen at all), and now, after the fact, you tell me that "they thought it would be more appropriate"

So what is the purpose of you posting here?

I'd agree in a way that old threads that had value but were necrod should be locked, however depending on what was posted in the necro these posts should be deleted. For threads that offer nothing but a place for people to build up their post count, they should be deleted (as you said).

I agree.


He suggested to lock old threads instead of deleting them.

I think trashy old threads need to be deleted so people won't participate in such threads again which could reduce trashy/spam threads/posts.

Sometimes deleting old threads are just as appropriate as deleting new ones. Think back to all of the shit threads that got removed, such as the ones that hilariousandco mentioned:
Do you honestly think that leaving these threads readily available, and thus enabling spammers to bleed the forum, is something that should continue?

"But I said that theymos would have to approve the deletion"
theymos has proven, by his lack of action towards it, that he cares little about signature spam. In addition to this, not only is theymos already busy with his other projects, but then asking him to approve a load of deletions (that are common sense to anyone not skewed by BTC they receive for posting) would be stretching him even thinner than he is already - therefore removing his time from things that actually matter.

It is applicable to everyone that comes to this forum to post for the wrong reason. Normal people - who either don't participate in signature campaigns or see their earnings as a bonus and nothing else - couldn't care less if they have posts removed.
Mitchell has had over 1,000 posts removed from his post count due to these changes. Lauda has had around 700. Your 64 posts are nothing, especially considering the huge amount that you already have, and yet you're still here trying to act like you're not doing this simply out of greed.

I'm eagerly looking to replace the governing body at [insert your country of residence here]. Are you scared about me charging you with crimes and sending you to prison?

And yet they deleted it anyway, as they thought it would be more appropriate. What disgusting abuse of their power, right?

I think you got it all wrong dude, really

But you may have to walk to the beginning of this thread and read again the OP. If you actually read it, you would see that I speak only about old threads. If a thread had been there for months or even years, what is the purpose in deleting it? Did you inadvertently miss that point or specifically chose to ignore it? It is no use trying to make me look or feel guilty in this way (this is what you are going after) since this is applicable not just to me, which I also made clear and which you also chose to ignore. Apart from that, you may want to refresh your memory as to who was so eagerly looking to become a new global moderator here not so long ago, so we were not in fact very far from actually getting into the mess which I think is still possible. To tell the truth, I already witnessed posts deleted by a mod from a resurrected necrothread where just locking it would suffice for all practical intents and purposes (so, in a sense, we are already there)

Despite all of the needlessly long paragraphs, all I gathered from this was 'I had less than 0.5% of my posts removed and now I want moderators to be stripped of one of their most important abilities so that I don't lose out on any more precious signature campaign earnings'. I don't think this is worthy of any attention by moderators or administrators.

If you're not happy with trusting global moderators and the administrators you are polling (as they are the only people able to delete the majority of threads on this forum) to not wage some personal vendetta on you, then you shouldn't be on this forum.
Referencing Lauda in this situation as an example of what could happen isn't appropriate, as Lauda's power even as a previous staff member was severely limited to Newbies and posts within their sections. By this, if you wanted to negate all risk of someone like them waging war against you, all you had to do was not post in the sections they were moderating. The scenario you are envisioning can only be done by perhaps 4 to 5 members on the forum, all of which have bigger things to think about than removing some posts of a specific user to stop their signature campaign earnings.

I'm am also 1 of the affected reduced post count in my account. And i think its not a problem since a new post are not deleted and only the oldest post are got deleted i think you can inform the signature campaign manager to check your present post instead of the old post.
I notice my post count was reduce and i think its not a big deal anytime you can contact the manager who manager your campaign.. Since the signature campaign of coinroll is automated bot counts it can really affected your post count the same happen to someone join in bitmixer campaign that i think better to contact the manager of your campaign.
And i think mods/admin are always doing the right thing for everyone not only to you or me..

You're still neglecting some main points of the argument and just selecting what you can argue about.

So just answer this: Does the forum owes you a living?

A good attempt to lick, I second that

The problem is that both of you are taking things out of context and trying to put them into a different one. Obviously, this won't work since there is no point to debate in this specific context (you will lose anyway). Basically, I have come up with a proposal to limit mods' rights to prevent them from covertly abusing these rights. Why hillarious is against that (as least so it appears) is understandable, but it is not quite clear what makes you, a sig campaign participant like me (and not a mod at that), back him up (apart from what I already mentioned above). I would be utterly curious to see it when you find out one morning that half of your posts has been trashed for no reason and without a trace. As you can see, my post count didn't change due to a mod's deliberate action, but I still support my stance since this is just a matter of time when some rogue moderator does something like that (not necessarily to me). We have already seen that (a mod waging a personal vendetta against a certain user), so there is no reason to think that it won't happen again. In this way, you can no longer parrot it like it all comes down to "petty complaining" and forum "owing me a living". Those who followed me in this section know that I'm always in favor of giving users more freedom and limiting rights as well as abuse of these rights by the mods. For example, I was one of the few strongly opposing the idea of introducing the "banned" rank suggested by some former moderator

Actually you don't make any sense. And I didn't ask any question nor any do except you. So the forum now owes you a living?


I guess we should stop this argument. I'd like to emphasize this:


P.S. You're neglecting some main points of the argument and just selecting what you can argue about.

This is the whole point

That question was to show how meaningless are such questions in and of itself. You don't have a wife (which is what I expected to hear), but the question that I asked assumes, first, that you have a wife, and, second, that you are (were) beating her. It is essentially the same with the questions like "what does the forum owe you" or statements like "the forum doesn't owe you a living", because such a question (and statement) assumes that a forum can potentially owe you (or anyone) something (or anything) in the first place, which it simply can't. Hope this helps

Let's correct that: You have come up with a suggestion like that because of a complaint. A complaint regarding your post diminished by 64 hence you have suggested a proposal to "disable deleting old thread". Why? As you have reasoned: since this could negatively affect people who are enrolled in sig campaigns and and thus this possibility can be abused by mods or whoever is allowed to delete the threads

And no I didn't mention anything minor. And in this economy, signature campaigns have a huge part. I know that "many a little makes a mickle" and you are correct.

If you have any problem with the staffs, mods, or admins here then I'll stay out of it. Though I am not saying it doesn't concern me or anyone in any way.

Your bottom line is: to limit what mods can do since it might be abused and will greatly affect Bitcoin economy i.e. particularly signature campaigns.

Just correct anything because it is based on how I understand you. No offense in any of those I have written.

But remember: the forum doesn't owe anything in this economy. EDIT: It is not the real purpose of the forum so to put in a simpler way, the forum doesn't concern itself with this economy  as long as it functions as to what it should be because if not then the forum would intervene and if worst comes to worst then the forum might throw away this economy (a possibility) but still doing its best for the forum itself and this economy would coexist.

P.S. Ok. You have clarified that the economy is within the argument that's because you have shed light the intention behind this suggestion. So this really is about signature campaigns and not to fill your curiousity as to "why?". I get it now.

P.P.S. You know you have made a good argument in your unedited post like the one I'd quoted. I don't know how my wife was included in the argument (the edited one). I don't have a wife btw.

It is not me who is "going out of track"

First, it was not me who started claiming that the forum doesn't owe anything to anyone (or the opposite), so don't come up to me with this question. Talk to those who brought up this issue in the first place (preferably elsewhere). As I already said, forum is made up of users (this is what the word itself means, "a square where people meet to discuss business and political matters"), thus the whole question is utterly meaningless. Just in case, how long ago did you stop beating your wife? Further, I didn't start this thread to complain (though it didn't feel quite right to lose over 60 posts overnight), I came up with a specific proposal to disable deleting old threads since this could negatively affect people who are enrolled in sig campaigns (apart from it being just wrong on its own), and thus this possibility can be abused by mods or whoever is allowed to delete the threads. We have already seen how a mod got kicked out for blackmailing, so don't think of that as something being unlikely or impossible. And I think I have made it pretty clear why this can have negative consequences if we assume that Bitcointalk actually serves to promote Bitcoin, and this has everything to do with the Bitcoin economy that appeared here. If you think that it is a minor thing, think again since "many a little makes a mickle" and "a road of thousand miles is made up of small steps"

You are going out of track. The argument is not on economy or whatever. It is about what the forum owes.

And I am not saying the economy within the forum is nothing like nothing of no value or whatever. It is not just the signature campaign is playing the role in this but all the trades between the users by the use of this forum. Anyway, let's not talk about that much here since it is not the major thing here (I mean in this thread or the topic at hand).

I'll just quote a part of my post:

---

Honestly, I though that this complaint is not about regarding the signature campaign or whatever but rather to answer the question "why?". But I want to still believe that it is not.

P.S. "BAN ALL SIG CAMPAIGNS" thread

I think it is rather you who don't fully understand what it is about

And it's a pity if the forum administration doesn't understand or care about it either. You would obviously say that it is about Bitcoin discussion and that's all. If that is really all, why not then disable all signatures and get done with that? Would that be good for Bitcoin? If this forum is about making Bitcoin more popular, then you can't possibly say that it will do any good. But if Bitcointalk is in fact about that after all, then this economy is likely the best it can do in that direction. Guess who is actually blind here? Without this economy, the forum would quickly turn into yet another such forum, though created by Satoshi himself. But other than that, it wouldn't have any particular competitive edge. It is this economy that makes it unique, and this economy (at least, to me) is worth a lot more than empty talks (for the most part) which the forum would quickly come down to without it. It is not about duties or obligations, or anything to that tune, it is more about simple common sense of not losing what you have managed to attain. In practice, it means thinking in advance about how your actions are going to affect this whole thing

When I first view this thread, I thought the OP was just curious why his post count is diminished by 64 posts and not related to any signature campaign.

Curiousity about what trashy post did he did or what trashy topic he has replied on.

Though it is true that the forum owes to its members the contribution of quality and constructive posts made but regarding this economy you are talking about then forum doesn't owes you or anyone that. You seem to mistakingly define what this forum is all about!

Try to know what this forum is all about. Seems blinded by a lot of campaigns running here and there.

- There are a few rare mod/admin actions which change your real number of posts but neglect to update your post count.
- Errors can occur which can cause it to drift from the real value.
- If your account is fairly old, then previous post-count recounts will have counted your MOVED: redirection topics, even though these are not counted when you make them. I fixed it this time so that these topics are not counted, undoing the previous erroneous recounts.

I think I have seen my post count shrink with 6 posts, which isn't a big deal for me at all, but I was wondering, how does one end up with an inaccurate post count?

What would change is that you'd never even realize your posts got deleted.   The administration of this forum has no duty to the economy of which you speak,  and therefore shouldn't give a shit about lost earnings resulting from deleted posts.   Only the campaigners themselves care about that and the majority don't give two shits about the health of this forum.

People shouldn't be obsessive about post counts...

I did a global recount of user posts starting yesterday. Your post count had been inaccurate.

This doesn't change anything

What would it change if I weren't enrolled in a signature campaign? Would it take anything from my argument? I guess I could have said absolutely the same words. Nevertheless, even if we completely discard this point, the forum has become a small Bitcoin economy in and of itself, this is the reality, and you have to face it and deal with that appropriately. Deleting old threads negatively affects this economy, and you have to admit it, so you can't get away with it by claiming that it is just me complaining or being paid for posting is a privilege or a bonus (remember, karma is a bitch). Was that you?

No, it doesn't have anything to do with my point at all and it seems you don't know what the forum is about. The forum is to discuss bitcoin. The fact that you can get paid to do so is a privilege and a bonus you should be grateful for, but the forum doesn't owe you a living. You're complaining about something petty because you're upset that you've lost out on a few dollars and that's all this is about.

I moved your post here since replying where it originated would not be a proper place for my reply


The campaign certainly doesn't have anything to do with this issue

And I think I have already made it pretty clear (that's basically the reason why I created this thread), but I can't agree with your point that "forum doesn't owe you anything for that". As it seems to me, you don't fully understand what this forum (or just any such forum) is essentially about (despite you being a global moderator). The forum is made up of you, me, and other posters (this is what the word itself means), so it can't possibly be the way you look at it, as if it owed nothing to its members (read forum owes everything to its members). Forum members are what a forum consists of, and that cannot be ignored. Hope this helps better understand my point


Why should old threads get deleted at all (apart from technical issues)?

My proposal is to have some kind of a jury consisting of at least 2-3 different people who will have the authority to can completely or restore old threads. I think theymos is too busy to spend any time on this thing. So if 2-3 different admins and or global mods agree that a particular thread should be canned, then it should be. If there is no mutual agreement then the deleted thread gets put back up where it was. On first sight all this idea looks like a hella lot of additional work to drudge through but I don't think locking down old threads automatically after a period of time has passed from being deleted is a good idea either because not everything written is worth reading later on so if there is outright crap that thread ought to be deleted.

So tl:dr we need some kind a jury of a couple of admins/mods who will agree or disagree with the deletion of old threads.

Have you visited Primedice forum? There is a board which when you post there, it doesn't count and it's for fun so I guess that would be nice if it is implemented here. Looking forward to it. Maybe you can use it as a reference?


Lol. Pork or beef? Just kidding. Know who you are accusing with. You can't just judge the book by its cover. Not all who have signature ad means doing like what others are.

I think all staff can delete or trashcan a thread as long as it is in their jurisdiction so to speak. IE a patroller can only delete or trashcan a thread created by a newbie and a local only mod can only delete/trashcan a thread in their local board.

I know the Wall observer thread is only locked but theymos mentioned creating a board that didn't contribute to post count because of that thread and I thought he may have tested something out with it.

How many moderators are allowed to delete threads?

Just in case, I don't remember that I've been ever posting in the Wall observer thread if you refer to this thread. Anyway, it is locked, not deleted. Is it possible to track a deleted thread by the date when it was deleted? Though if you say that a thread can be deleted without a trace, then it is even stranger. Okay, let's wait for theymos' word (hope he will look into this issue)


I ask you to refrain from posting in this thread. The only one spamming here is you

I check on the post who replied my post, that's not accurate and out of dated 
That's not easy for this forum to maintain so many years.

So we can use notepad to noted the things we want rather than check back old thread...
the campaign signature usage for forum let the owner decide if the stat is over .

Oh great. Now we get even more spam from the campaigners trying to meat their quota to cover the loss!

It has to be a different thread since I always avoid posting in self moderated threads. I once lost a huge load of posts due to some one in the press section that was kicked from the campaign he was participating in, and thus didn't get paid, and instantly found it necessary to delete all posts made in his threads by other users.

I appreciate the effort done to track down the thread that got trashed, I think we'll need to have some patience to see what theymos has to say.

I had a look in the trashcan but figured if it was an old thread it would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Also if it was straight up deleted it wouldn't be in there. I wonder if theymos tried tinkering with something or the wall observer thread that effected post counts? I guess we'll just have to wait for theymos to look into it.

Maybe there is a good reason behind it like hilariousandco stated. It really is fun to read how people from the past keep saying Bitcoin's gonna die or whatever so I am in support to just lock the old thread or transfer it to off topic section.

Just wondering what that topic is since OP said his 64 post were deminished by the deletion of a topic. Might as well shed light to the topic by knowing what that topic is so it would become justifiable? Seems like the OP is a good poster himself and been active with that particular topic having 64 post in there.

Big threads are rarely deleted or moved to the trashcan and are in fact usually just locked. The only big ones I've ever trashed are utter shit threads in gambling discussion or off topic like is 0.002 bitcoin a good amount to gamble with or what time do you wake up in the morning etc after they have quickly been spammed to death. I don't know what thread has gone but I'll have a scan of the trashcan when I get on the PC.

I pretty much agree here. I quite often like to browse through old threads to measure how the sentiment was back then, how people were advicing each other to cash out at $500 before the price starts to crash, etc. Instead of deleting threads, just lock them. It means that it won't attract any more spam, but people can still browse through them. Instead of moderators focusing on old burried threads, they should do some active effort to combat recent spam, because that's what we need. Lock old threads, or move them to the off-topic section where people don't get paid to post, deletion is meaningless.

All of a sudden, my post count got diminished by 64 posts this morning

I didn't receive any notification that my posts got deleted, which you usually receive when just your post is deleted by a moderator. Obviously, the whole thread was trashed. Since my recent posts are all in place (I checked my post history), it is some old thread that got deleted, likely created years ago. I don't know which thread got deleted, I don't know who deleted it, I don't even know if I'm somehow involved in that but I do think this is not a good idea at all since this possibility allows easy abuse by moderators if they decide to start a personal vendetta against a certain user by deleting old threads with his posts. I don't think that I was a victim of this vendetta (if there is any), and I hope that I will never be but the issue is certainly present and it finally revealed itself. So my proposal to the forum administration is to disable deletion of old threads (say, older than a few days) by moderators unless given explicit consent by Theymos. Really, if the thread didn't get deleted at once (within a few days), it pretty much means that it is worth staying here, while deleting an old thread feels like a spit in the face of the posters