Topic: Poll: Acceptability of Signature Wearer's Use of Insults and Foul Language (Read 663 times)

The disgusting LIAR and signature spammer is YOU! Besides the foul language you use and find acceptable when it is directed at me!

Please show me all the self-moderated threads I have opened? Let us see how many you or anyone else can find!

You still have the option to apologize!

P.S.
It is not a bad idea to open a self-moderated thread, but only because of you, but rest assured that I will not delete your disgusting posts so that all members can see what kind of disgusting member you are.

I voted that it is acceptable, especially if it is to insult fucking scammers, liars and cowards like the OP, who couldn't make the thread self-moderate in this section simply because in this section the option is not available. Otherwise he would have created a cowardly thread of his own in this section as he has done in others.

Why are you going off topic what happened to your language Also off topic postings should not be paid IMHO by your Signature Manager

I'm really, really sorry that your forum experience did not work out as intended and we all failed to live up to your standards; clearly there are too many irresolvable issues here for your experience to be productive one, and we will all be deeply saddened by your departure.

Really Sorry that I  have to disagree.

You are actually saying that the poster can put in a paragraph of valid and on-topic text and add some insults and foul language and get paid! Sorry this is not acceptable to me at all and if a manager can or will handle it like this they are also only in it for the money and not for fair delivery for their paying client. this gives me food for another poll!

For you it only counts if there is a post of only insults, then the poster should not get paid, but if he mixes it all is fine.
Please reconsider, thanks

Campaign managers add in their campaign rules that posts must be constructive, meaning posts that are off topic are likely not to be paid, but the use of foul language would not be considered off topic in all cases; you can be constructive and chip in one or two insults or whatever, the campaign manager would definitely not mind. Prolly if the content of the post is just insults and nothing else, then i think it is fair if the manager does not pay for that particular post.

Respect is earned.  

If someone loses my respect, I reserve the right to insult them.  It's as simple as that.  I'm not here to sugar-coat anything.  I call it like I see it.  Anyone who has read my posts knows there's a sharp side to my tongue, heh.  If the campaign I'm on decided not to pay posts where I used foul language or insulted people, I'd simply get paid a bit less.  It wouldn't stop me doing it.

Bottom line:  If you don't like reading what certain people are saying, that's what the 'ignore' button is for.

Sorry, I thought we already agreed that we were only talking about signature campaigns, since the poll is only about signature campaigns.

Let me give you an example. I do not wear a signature of any campaign that will pay me sats for my posts. So I can attack and insult and will only harm myself if it is below the belt.

A member with a signature of a signature campaign who gets paid for his postings should IMO not go off topic and use any insults or foul language. even if it is not specifically in the signature rules mentioned by the manager. It should be obvious. This foul member should not be paid by the manager.
Yes, this is just my opinion and that is why I opened the poll.

Cheers

The forum supports freedom of speech; those who are too tender and cannot sleep from the insults of strangers should press the ignore button more often. Also, there are those here who always recommend putting on thick skin. For some, obscene words are poured with mother's milk; should they be blamed for it? This is a problem of upbringing, and if a person is what he is, just accept him as he is; it’s better than prevaricating, pretending to be a gentleman, and in the end, holding a knife behind his back.
There are plenty of these lies offline. It's better to be a good person who knows how to swear than a quiet, well-mannered scum.

Finally, 2 members who not only read, but understand very well what they read.

Chapeau to @PrivacyG and @Vod (haters, spare your ass licking comments, as I am not and never will be)

@Privacy
Exactly the poll is about foul language and insults in signature campaigns. We all know that there are rules in this forum and among civilized people and one of the rules is certainly not to attack members with foul language and insults. But the poll is specifically about signature campaigns and the people who carry them.

Yes, the manager of such campaigns also has a great responsibility to his client who is the paying party and as you pointed out it will damage the clients casino/company name.



This post by @Vod is one of the best I have ever read in this forum. I am many years member here and well hated by spammers and scammers like moneypot platform owners years ago. I received a lot of red trust from them because I was the first to call out their rug pull. After they did the rug pull many years ago, their red trust is still in my trust. IMHO this is not right but ok it is what it is.

Anyway, this post from @Vod gives me hope if the right people read it. Because I love bitcoin and I love this forum.

Cheers and thanks to both of you

Removal could be done automatically using the trust or merit system - you just need to decentralize both of those.     Make the DT lottery open source (is it random or based on opportunity?) and replace merit sources with a more intelligent distribution system.  Anything that is not centralized (monthly bitcoin payments to bitcoin community coin holders, or forum workers, or forum designers for examples) should be documented so Theymos cannot further treat the assets as his own.

I agree to this.

Full freedom is amazing until it goes into the wrong hands.  The only way a Decentralized Forum would work well is if there was some sort of way to remove posts through the consensus of the community.  But how do you do that without having the wrong hands multiplying their voting power to influence the consensus to their advantage.

Unfortunately we do not live an utopia so limits are necessary.  Similar to how I see Bitcoin, this Forum either imposes limits or does not at all.  If there is freedom of speech and freedom of expression, we should be allowed to say any thing any time.  But then how do you deal with Doxxing, threats et cetera.  They need to be dealt with, whether we like it or not.

Limits on foul language or insults are in my opinion very subjective and highly dependent on the situation.  I would see some body presenting foul language in the Thread about a very outrageous subject such as outrageous restrictions imposed by a Government or such.  But then you have the situation of users randomly going off topic and insulting any body and every body they do not like and presenting foul language with no reason really.  There is an option to ignore that user, or there can be a limit triggered by subjectiveness of moderators or Theymos himself.

But OP particularly mentions Signature Wearers.  If this is the case then I believe it should be the choice of the Manager whether to allow such behavior or not.  After all, they are choosing a participant through selection.  If the participant does not behave well and the Manager notices and does not like it or the promoted Service thinks it would damage their image, I presume there would be some sort of notice followed by removal from the Campaign.

Back on topic, there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Theymos does allow liberal use of expression, stopping at physical threats.   You can swear all you want and have any opinion you want - to a point.   If you try to post something Theymos does not want seen, he does delete it, both here and on r/bitcoin.  These sites, like any other centralized government, limits speech that could damage it.

TMAN?  Yeah, there's a guy who had the mouth of a trucker--and I often wonder where he went to.  The forum lost a lot of very colorful members in the last few years, whether they used a profuse amount of profanity or just voiced their opinions in a forceful manner.  It's unfortunate that they're not all still around, because it seems like they added just the right amount of spice to certain discussions, something that's missing right now.

And hell no, I don't want to be censored on bitcointalk.  There are so many other discussion forums where profanity is the least of what you can't write.  Here you can offend people without fear of getting banned, and the community basically regulates itself if someone steps out of line.  That's the way it ought to be IMO, instead of an admin making rules up in order to protect people's feelings and whatnot.  

Yeah, bitcointalk does have rules about what can be said, but they're so rarely enforced that they might as well not even exist.  Go Theymos!

I voted for subjective option. Same like in our daily life, sometimes there is no other way to deliver message without insulting someone that he would understand. Offcourse, it's not acceptable if you will do that too often. But I see nothing wrong to insult scammers, abusers and similar kind of idiots.
Also, sometimes even friendly banter can look like insult.
P.S. I'm not sure what kind of issue you have OP, but it goes off-topic and there is no need to use this colourfoul text.

Let's see. You have proven once again that you are just like Nutildah, a LIAR and a false accuser. You should be ashamed

^I’m not trying to derail your poll with my post above. You are the one who started it and I just merely pointed out to you how you easily agitated when an issue is about your previous action is addressed to you.

Just checking here the result of your poll until I saw again your color code post that you are using when the topic is about Blackjack.fun since you already change it back to normal when you started this thread. Not gonna cause you a buzz anymore here. Chill.

Nutildah and you derailed the Poll now. I hope other members can see it. this Poll is not personal but a legit one

please give me the valid argument? let him or you or anyone prove that I exploited Blackjack.fun for 24USDT or a part of it!
and how much I wanted to extort from Blackjack.fun

all empty accusations! and if not PROVE IT!

I answered you on your what I thought was a serious question and then I never heard back from you. did you forget?
I am sure you had your reasons for not answering. You asked me how Blackjack.fun and I can just agree and settle the case as you could not believe that the whole dilemma is 30USDT and even as a donation.

Prove me wrong and that I wanted to steal the big part of 24USDT easy as that. but you can not and even Blackjack.fun can not prove it as they have not done so far. you and all the others who are fighting me are not doing Blackjack.fun a favor in the contrary you are just hurting them more and more. That is fine with me, and I am grateful for the opportunity to shout it over and over again.


It would be so easy to end this sad comedy of yours if you or whoever and Blackjack.fun would prove your false and empty accusations because if you prove it I will have to sit on my hands/mouth and apologize.

I still think that this is a very legit Poll even some want to derail it as I opened it. I can promise to those who want to derail it that I have some more legit Polls in mind

@Jackpotracer you change temper quickly and forget about the intention of your thread despite you are the sole author. This is the reason why keep receiving foul word and insulted because you are easy to be triggered on comment that is against you. 

It only takes you 8 non color post to be back again on this same color scheme post pattern to intensify the message of your post. @Nutildah always hits you right on the spot with his valid argument.

I apologize, but I cannot let a LIAR and a member who follows me just to spread his lies go away without an answer.
I opened this poll and it is a simple and legitimate poll. Why would someone come in here to attack me and make it personal? Did I mention a member by name and attack them in this poll? NO


Why did you vote here? AM I surprised that you voted with YES? NO as you don't care as long you can show your Signature to earn some sats?
You wrote I opened this poll because I am mad at signature spammers, YES I AM and with reason and one is members like YOU


Wrong and you are a LIAR and anyone who is interested can read the scam accusation thread (link he posted) but not only to read but to be objective to understand the reason.
You also should read their thread
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63814896
and the reputation thread they opened
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63847290

Yes Blackjack.fun the reputable online casino as you call it SCAMMED me out of 24USDT LOL and they accused me that a big part of the 24USDT was won by using an exploit LOL
I found the exploit when another player used it against me. Instead of being grateful, they accused me of cheating them out of most of the 24USDT. All this without providing any evidence in the form of game logs, which would be easy for the owner/developer. BTW I never asked for a withdrawal as I wanted to help without any bounty


Blatant LIAR! Prove your Accusations!

Blackjack.fun after I opened the Scam accusation wanted to pay me the 24USDT - 30USDT and an additional 100USDT even without KYC! Guess what I did? I kindly declined it as no one can buy me! You can try me! I asked them to give the 30USDT as a donation to any Legendary member or to open a game and round riddle and give the 30USDT as a Prize for free

A member asked me as he was confused that the whole discussion was about 30USDT and an apology because of false accusation if I will stop and close the scam accusation. here you can read the conversation in Blackjack.fun gambling thread

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63819291
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63819340
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63821949
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63822407

sadly I did not get any answer from this member or Blackjack.fun which means they want to go on fighting for 30USDT the owe me and I never asked for but then I insisted they need to give it as  Donation.

Conversations can sometimes get heated and a person’s choice in language will reflect that. We cannot change human nature, therefore campaign managers should have some tolerance for foul language. As long as the person isn’t doing it just to be a troll and behaving in such a way that it becomes detrimental to the image of the business they are advertising then it should just be considered as exercising their right to free speech.

I voted Yes, Acceptable. But it comes with the caveat of being conditional and whether or not the language used is specifically harmful to the employer of the campaign.

OP is just big mad because he launched a Don Quixote-esque campaign against a rather reputable online casino for reasons not entirely clear. Everyone who dared to criticize his heavily-flawed logic and foul-attitude approach was dismissed as being a "signature shower". To my knowledge not one single forum member has taken his side on this issue.

The casino tried to compensate and pacify him in every reasonable way, but he continues to spew unfounded bullshit against them, almost like he is trying to extort money from them or something. Clearly he's not right in the head and the feedback I left for him 4 years ago still holds true today, possibly more than ever before:

I suppose it is kind of a subjective thing and also highly dependent on the context of the situation and the rules of the signature campaign. A campaign manager can always do the easiest thing and simply not to count those posts which could be considered lacking of any value and only sent for the sake of flaming and the creation of chaos in a thread/discussion.
Eventually, anyone who just continues to insult without reason and purposely try to taunt others will get excluded from participating in the signature campaign and could even get red tagged by members who belong to the Default Trust.

Many of us have recently seen the case of certain so-called Doctor from the United States which only comes around here in the forum to insult and claim universities are racist and promote violence against him, etc. He got red tagged and he could not join a signature campaign even if he wanted to, it is a clear demonstration of what happena if one misbehaves beyond common sense and reason. Just my opinion.

It is always just try to be civil and be respectful towards others, even when one have strong disagreements, it is one of the things one is supposed to learn how to do as an adult.

Subjective - meaning not all insults are acceptable and may need to be reported to a moderator, but of course there are exceptions why mods should not take action on the report. In some cases - insults may be removed by moderators because they lack meaning or more detailed explanation, but otherwise mods are unlikely to remove them if the post has much other value.

Managers most likely won't count insulting posts like just "you're stupid", "you're an idiot" or something like that due to the lack of character that is a posting requirement. But if it's "you're stupid - you've been warned not to do that and bla bla bla, maybe they will count it as a payment eligible post.

A very interesting angle of view!

yes, the phrase there is all I needed to stress the idea of criticism.. alot of posters would prefer to criticize rigorously every post they come across...it could include swearing and any type of foul languages you'd think of..
Exactly!! If anyone feels they should shove out their dirty panties for FUCK SAKE, let them be!.. it's got alot to do with their reputation.


Sandra 🧑‍🦰

I voted for Yes because all the figures on the wall show the same. Campaign managers may care less about the altercation between members of the forum and since it is a valid post, such would be scored OK just like others.

This is evident in the fact that they do not call anyone to order about this which is one of the reasons those wearing campaign signatures are emboldened to continue with their vulgar words unrestrained. Again, the forum does not spell a strict rule about this, I do not think that it is a headache for campaign managers to do that.

Needless to say, some of the abusive words are constructed with some sensible facts in most cases but just in an annoying manner. So this may make the campaign manager overlook the abusive words and go ahead to accept the post if the requirement of the campaign is met by it, which is the main goal here.

You are correct some bounty managers will hire people who they think can help the advertised platform create a good impression on their potential clients, it's the managers' privilege to pick the right people in their campaign but they base it on the substance of the post, contribution to the community and where the participant is mostly active based on the preference of the advertisers.

Maybe for the Stake or ShitElonCoin campaign, yes, but I don't think that applies to all campaigns. If not all managers are indifferent to the quality of their posters/if the poster is a scammer, it's probably because their customers aren't either indifferent I guess.


If it can helps you, LoyceV already offers a service that tracks signature changes and makes it possible to find out who is wearing what on a certain date.
LoyceV's Avatar and Signature log (campaign managers read this!)

This is very commendable, and most here should appreciate it. But you still risk becoming the most hated member here.

>>>All the cheaters will hate you 

The only correct answer is that it is subject to the rules of the campaign and Bitcointalk, and if the posts give a negative impression of the advertised service then the campaign manager reserves the right to terminate his membership in the campaign.

I voted insignificant.

I think that insults and foul language should be avoided and we should all stay civil and professional as in real life. But not censored. Freedom of speech is what this forum stands for and that should not change.

A signature wearer is usually favored for how much they post, their seniority, rank, and much more. Whether or not he uses foul language is not something that any advertiser would care about unless it were to become a direct issue, connected to their business.

I’m not a fan of using insult on a post even on a rough conversation with other user that doesn’t get my point. But as many years of using the forum for discussion I learned how to use the ignore button to hide the post from other user that I don’t like the post construction. It’s a common knowledge here and everyone already mention that foul language and insults are not moderated.

Signature campaign is just an advertisement which means it can’t control the user posting habits unless it’s already harmful to the brand but it’s up to the manager to their job. I really suggest that you start using the ignore button instead of encouraging everyone here to change their posting habits.

There is no rule prohibiting campaign participants using foul languages on their posts, if you think it is unnecessary and should not be allowed you can ask campaign managers to add a rule on their campaign that prohibits campaign participants from using foul language.

For me I don't see anythin wrong with forum members(may they be a campaign participants or not) using foul language on their posts.

I like the freedom of speech that's observed here honestly. I think we are all adults and can handle hearing the word fuck or whatever foul language is offending you. Instead of getting upset, just scroll past the post if it bothers you. I'm not going to lose sleep if I read a post and someone calls me a bitch or whatever, neither should any of you.

A campaign is paying users to make posts, they're not acting like dictators and telling us what to post.

Thank you for your explanation as it makes a lot of sense if it is used this way. although not sure if it is handled this way.


Sorry, IMO there is a simple and clear hierarchy in the signature campaign pyramid.

The company/client paying for the campaign
The Signature Campaign Manager
The signature carrier/presenter

Who has the most to lose (in terms of money and reputation)?
The answer should be simple, as the pyramid will tell you



Hehe very well said!

I went with "It is subjective", I see many went with "Yes, it is acceptable".

When it become acceptable and granted for everyone then I think all the forum members will be sold to their signature companies. Business with shady intention companies will launch a campaign and their campaign members will justify anything [right or wrong] in their favour.

Foul word is not strictly prohibited for signature wearer since there’s no written rule in the forum for this while most of the signature campaign rules doesn’t include it either. If you really want to push this to signature wearers then campaign managers are the one you need to convince since they are the one who set rules among signature campaign participants if you will target signature wearers on this topic.

If you want to be respected then avoid creating a topic that will cause a commotion that usually resulted to foul words. If there’s only a thing which signature wearer avoid is posting a content that is directly opposing the signature that he wears.

If I meet a thread full of insults and foul words, I can easily use the report button and if a few more people do so, a mod will be notified to take necessary actions. In the other hand, a campaign manager might not be aware of such a thread. I doubt that campaign managers read posts of their campaign participants verbatim. Unless a particular participant is of the habit of insulting always, then the manager should have to keep eyes on him.

I remember "TMAN" very well and he was also a gentleman.
According to your opinion, maybe it would be good to start a thread for Siganture wearers just for cursing and cussing to let them get rid of those emotions you mentioned they need to get rid of. So they don't have to do it in serious threads while wearing their signature. This might be really fun and help them.


 thanks I will try to add those

Sorry, but I don't understand why it should be easier for a mod to find insults than for a signature manager?

• Yes, it is acceptable 
• No, it is strictly unacceptable
• It is subjective 
• Insignificant

I could go with the last option, unless it is an obvious dead brain troll. Again, it is easier for moderators to locate an insulting thread and delete all comments than a manager to identify and deny such posts.

thank you for the posting. if you tell me what options I should add maybe I still can add those.

BTW I don't think that foul language and insults are difficult to see or needed to be looked for in between the lines.

cheers

I have no problem with it. People are not machines. We have emotions and sometimes cursing is the best way to show those emotions. When you get angry at something, you curse, you get savage. Obviously it is no good if you are constantly in that mood but that's a decision for the campaign manager. I remember there used to be forum user "TMAN" and he was cursing every time he opened his mouth and somehow he was entertaining. He overdid it so much, people gained immunity to his foul mouth in the end. Still though, I don't want to see everybody becoming a TMAN. That would create a mess.

Op, there are only two options in your poll and I think it will be fair to add more options(s). I would have voted the second option, but the word strictly has made it no longer appropriate to be my answer. In the forum, most of the things are not just followed strictly. Whether or not in the forum, foul words and insults are not acceptable and atleast they shouldn't be paid for. But how then will a campaign manager read in-between lines of every posts to know the ones containing foul words.

Is there a special reason why people request that a thread be locked immediately after providing their own answers? This doesn't look like a shitty thread or so...

A campaign project and manager can do what they want and pay for what advertising content they deem fit as long as it is not violating forum rules. There is no separate moderation for those wearing signatures from those who are not. The only small distinction might be that if you are caught plagiarizing, it will be much more difficult to get a pardon if those posts where made with the purpose of earning. This is a very small distinction and does not apply in your case.

If you feel any particular post is breaking the forum rules, report it and let the mods handle the case.

- Jay -

Since this is about signature campaign, you can PM the manager about those users.

No, why someone need to create a new topic in order to lock other topic? it's spam.

Even there was a thread created and most people voted to lock your topic, you can still argue and don't want to lock it. Only you and the moderator have the way to lock your topic, votes from 50K users won't matter.

Fair enough, but the question was about foul language and insults in Signature Campaign posts and whether it was acceptable.

if you want me to lock this topic please open another Poll if this topic should be closed. till now you are the only one who is asking for it.

The advertisers don't care about the content; only the income.  This is a mostly free speech forum.
They would only be concerned if their business was connected to the scam, not if the poster is just scamming.

I've recently begun tracking all signature, avatar and tagline changes.  Until I started this project (similar to BPIP but different) there was no way to "prove" someone wore a signature when they wrote something.   I'm not doing this for legal reasons, since I voted it's acceptable, but more to track signature cheaters and other fraud.

It is normal in the mode of communication for some people to use foul language in their speech, and while you may see and consider their language foul as offensive, these people may not see anything wrong in it.

A campaign manager should add to the campaign rules that foul languages and use of insulting words are not permitted in the campaign, so that if any member or signature campaign wearer who defaults will understand that they have broken a rule.
It will not be fair to some forum members who speak this way and are wearers of a signature, if they are penalized without warning.

But it is written; it's just a typical weird-ass unwritten-but-written-unofficial-and-rarely-enforced kind of forum rule dreamed up by Theymos or who knows who else.

As far as signature campaigners and insults/profanity goes, it's those kinds of posts that get the eyeballs and I don't think there's a single campaign project owner who's specified that their participants can't use whatever choice of words they want.  If that was actually a rule in a campaign, it'd be one I'd avoid like the plague.  Who wants some censor following them around the forum, micromanaging what gets said and what doesn't?  Sounds pretty fuckin' icky to me.

From the rules FAQ:


But emphasis on "in most cases" as there could be cases belonging in gray lines. So if you think someone is going overboard, I don't see any harm on reporting it. After all, "one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports."

It's also worth noting that NSFL threats are not allowed.

Insult is something most people have had fun doing, especially when they have the privilege to do that. In situations where there is a clash between two members, you will see a lot of foul language on display in such conversations, with or without signatures in the person's profile. They just do it, and if the person is wearing a signature, it's left for the manager to decide if the post is qualified for pay or not.

With or without rules to guide or limit people from direct insults and the use of foul language, the truth is, it's hard to find a forum or platform without such people. It can just be done directly or indirectly, and whenever such a person thinks it's necessary, they will just display.

It is one of the unwritten rules of the forum. Besides being able to avoid insults and fouls languages is a mark of a decent human and shows some degree of civility. The poll isn't necessary because of people ticks that insults should be allowed the it means something is wrong with the community but I don't think that would happen. We are expected to treat other user with respect and be courteous in our replies and responses.

Op, shouldn't this have been a simple question rather than creating a poll? If yes, reputation suits it best.
Secondly; I'm wondering how less busy you probably are to be so affected by what anyone says in here... Insults and foul languages aren't permitted in here,.. but sometimes, people can be so mulish in behavior and there's a little to what you can do about it...
I'd advice that you lock this poll as it's not even necessary to vote for what has been already implemented.

Sandra 🧑‍🦰

The use of insults or foul language should not be present here, with or without a signature in the profile. The fact that this forum is democratic and there is no adequate punishment for insulting does not mean that it is acceptable.
That's the answer, you can lock this topic.

Hello Members


I created this poll because I think this poll should give a clear message to the Signature Wearer to just stay on topic without any insults.

Please give us your explanation why you voted the way you did.

Thank you