Topic: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ - page 16. (Read 956106 times)

Human nature is such that I was on here for 4.5 hours before I found this post.  I was too busy digging in.  I didn't really want to invest the time to read when there were so many other things. to read.
I see that many people say that the rules should be more defined and clearer and that will help. 
But the other topics are very enticing, so you can't expect people to seek them out. 

I just don't understand why you need so many accounts? What for? Why?

Every normal member has one account and struggling to rank up, and you have 10? One is not enough for you to share your opinion and thoughts or to discuss with people?

I think you need these accounts for bounty and signature campaigns and that is not allowed to participate in one bounty with few accounts, but also not allowed to join 10 different bounties with this accounts. As you know there is always "no alts" rule in each bounty campaign.

I don't care if having multiple accounts are allowed. That's not my point.

I'm saying that you got a negative trust for having 10 accounts in the same campaign and your answer for this is to create 2 new accounts. I'm pretty sure many DT members would tag all your new accounts for this, thus I thought it was funny that you decided to post this here.

Anyways, in the end, you can't just spam to rank up anymore since now you need to earn merit. So I don't care about what you do.

Because of your neg trust reference, which connects your old "useless" account (Almasani) with 10 other accounts. And each of of them were participating in the same campaign (which is against the rules of the campaign, thus it's considered cheating). P.S: I really don't believe in your "all the mentioned accounts belong to my friends" bullshit excuse.

Which one exactly do you think I should re-read?

So, you were cheating bounties with multiple accounts and your solution after getting a negative trust is to create more accounts? And post them here?

Not very smart.

Good catch, fixed.

Maybe a small typo: the rule 9 has [e] for examples but there is no example for the rule 9.

Feel free if you want.

IMO as long as you can relatively easily discern the fact that the content in question is not original, it should be fine.

Thanks for the reply wasn't aware of or maybe i forgot it, i don't remember now.

Theymos wrote this message in 2014. So I was interested in whether the worth of a unit of evil has changed now.

I am a little bit confused here, why would you like to know how much it costs?
Unit of evil is shown only when you try to create an account for the first time and is related somehow to the ban recieved by your network. Personally never heard that it is available otherwise.

Where can I find how much cost is a unit of evil now? Thanks for the answer.

Right that's what I had in mind, for quotation for another user's post, the correct "quote" comes with the link to the post automatically, but for the contents from the external website, the link to the specific source is necessary.  Edited my post above.

That is correct, if the ban was not just temporary you should have left the forum.

25. Ban evasion (using or creating accounts while one of your accounts is banned) is not allowed.

The ban applies to you as a person, not just the account. In reality that is pretty difficult to enforce so many banned people do come back.

I guess it's not the point of who needs it here rather the point of who needs it in French section.


Not only the visualization via "quote" I think - there should be the link to the original site nearby. Moreover: links should lead to direct sources (to the pages of original articles, for example). Some spamers use the "quote" option but never adduce the proper links (placing the abstract sentences like "source: bitsmedia.com" at best as informative as "source: google.com").


The only allowable occasion to create the account for banned user is to ask about their ban reason in Meta. Otherwise it's considered as ban evasion.

Did I just read that creating another account when one is banned is against the rule too? When I joined Bitcointalk newly through an airdrop program that required us to post in the official ANN of the project, my account got banned after few weeks of engaging in such activities, probably because I had nothing substantial to say than just to praise the coin/token or the developers. I was just a newbie that had no knowledge on how blockchain technology works so the comments I made was related to the comments I saw in the threads. Generic comments like "great project", " nice project", "to the moon" etc. I placed an appeal for repeal of the ban and up to today, not even an acknowledgement did I receive let alone honouring nor turning down the appeal. In that case, I should have just left Bitcointalk community forum then?

Regarding the rule No. 33 about plagiarism, is there a consensus for the correct way of the citation?  I think the most appropriate way is to enclose contents from other websites/posts by "quote".
[EDIT: quotation for other posts in the forum in the standard form automatically comes with the link to the post, but quotation for external webpage one should write the direct link to the specific webpage near the quotation.]

If the above quotation style is a consensus, it would be good to clarify the definition of the correct way of citation in the rule because some users are making use of the absence of it as a loophole: sometimes people use the contents without "quote" but with small citation which looks like they are trying to hide it, e.g.,

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.33194095
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.32274273

and other users post the contents even without mentioning the original threads, which I think conflicts the rule No. 33, see, e.g.:  

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/another-way-to-get-merit-3130158
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.32791816

These things are also being discussed in these threads:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/one-way-to-avoid-a-plagiarism-accusation-3255944 (use of "quote" for external webpage with link)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-gained-from-using-sources-3272524 (validity of small citation without "quote")

Since the number of these gray area posts seems increasing after merit system, it would be useful to clarify in the rule No. 33 whether the small citation without "quote" would be bad or good, and the definition of the correct way of the citation.

Translations:

Spanish translation "Reglas no oficiales del foro" (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/lista-no-oficial-de-reglas-si-oficiales-del-foro-guias-faq-705523) by dserrano5

German translation "Inoffizielle Bitcointalk.org Regeln/Richtlinien/FAQ" (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/inoffizielle-bitcointalkorg-regelnrichtlinienfaq-767079) by Zephir

Portuguese translation "Lista "não-oficial" de Regras do Fórum" (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/lista-nao-oficial-de-regras-do-forum-759695) by Adriano

Croatian translation "Neslužbena lista Bitcointalk.org pravila/smjernica/FAQ"  (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/dead-1182311) by Lauda

Arabic translation "قائمة غير رسمية من القواعد الرسمية للموقع" (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--2345906) by hugeblack

Filipino translation "Unofficial Forum Rules & Guildelines (Tagalog Version)" (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-forum-rules-guildelines-tagalog-version-2383339) by nc50lc

Polish translation "Nieoficjalna lista (oficjalnych) zasad, wskazówek, FAQ Bitcointalk.org by mprep" (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nieoficjalna-lista-oficjalnych-zasad-wskazowek-faq-bitcointalkorg-by-mprep-2861831) by poptok1




do you need french translation please for this post? i could post it for you

This isn't true and the only real time people usually tag alt accounts is if they've been used for shenanigans or to bypass regulations in sig campaigns or something else. People should be free to have any amount of anonymous alts if they so wish. The whole point of theymos even allowing alts is for privacy and anonymity sake and whether you want to expose them or not is up to you but people shouldn't be forced or even suggested to self-out them and there shouldn't be repercussions for those who are doing nothing wrong with them.

It has been discussed and clarified many times before. The consensus is that these things are not moderated by a centralised authority (admins and mods) but by the decentralised trust system (the community). So it is something you should report on Reputation board where it will be discussed and dealt with.