Topic: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ - page 17. (Read 1069171 times)

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.

My reasoning for not doing so was to see if there could be some discussion around this rule, if I was to post then that would alert the scamming user that he'd be noticed, and thus take measures to make sure he isn't noticed in future. Whereas I have pretty damning evidence at the moment, more evidence could be accumulated, and then the user would be more likely to be banned (were such a rule to exist). Anyway, I presume this is why this thread is open, to discuss/ clarify rules.

That's correct:

---

By not doing it, you're not helping either (at the same time, you're indirectly encouraging them to continue).
- Create a thread in Reputation (that's where users usually post such cases) > Provide the necessary information > wait for them to be tagged.

---

Yes (but since it isn't against the forum rules, nothing will happen).

Recently I discovered a user to be using no less than 14 accounts to bypass the rules of mine and other bounty campaigns (the rule being one account per user). I'm about 95% that all accounts belong to one user, having messaged a moderator he informed me this didn't break any rules, and that also moderators cannot interfere with scam accusations to prevent bias. Which I think is fair, however this users actions are negative, and badly effect the legitimate business of bounties.
I could post the accusation of the scam, and name the accounts, but this would help nothing as they could just create more accounts. I realise there are no rules around this but would be interested in having some discussion about this, I personally think such a user should be banned, in my opinion, do other people share the same?

If you don't have one in your local board (your language isn't listed in this topic but maybe someone already did it?) then i think that you can, but do not expect something in return

1 post = 1 activity
Maximum 14 activity per period of 14 days (periods could be found here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12saLhlUoqIdairxzuSPu6EYGrt7FN2lOstO1yDjCEbA/htmlview?pli=1)
If you don't make at least 1 post in a period, you will not receive any activity for this specific period.
If you all your posts are deleted in 1 period, you will lose the 14 activity for that specific period.

How does the activity calculation actually works, If I remain inactive I loose on activity points? can somebody please explain how it actually works

many thanks

I just want to add one further note to that. The practice of having undisclosed alts is likely to attract negative trust. The only way to avoid it is to openly declare the alts as many high ranking individuals have done. Leave trust to your other account stating 'this is my alt' and post in Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk III (2018 Q1) thread to declare it there.

Theoretically,
Having an alt or more accounts is allowed.
But if any one of those got banned, the others mustn't be used for ban evasion.
And Signature Campaign Managers doesn't allow alts within their campaigns because of numerous obvious reasons including spam, merit abuse and cheating.
Having alts may not be against the rules, but those "cheating practices" will likely get you red trust tagged by DT members.
So Alts, the way you want to use them is not allowed.

---

As a newbie, make sure to prioritize learning and ask questions in the Beginners & Help Board instead of replying spam just to increase your activity.
And take note:
Spam is not allowed in this forum.

So you all care about is sucking money in this forum until the last drop, and you are still a newbie? So promising...
Many are doing it for the moment but they will be caught and given negative trust probably for their spammy behaviour.
Bitcointalk right now is : http://www.easyvegan.info/img/liu-qiang-cow-scupture.jpg

Thanks. That is so self-explanatory it leaves me wondering why anyone would need to ask a question about it.

I believe it to be permanent until you pay the fee (since the current amount of units of evil is attached to the account).


A proxyban is an automatic ban occuring when someone tries to register a new account via the IP with units of evil (some dynamic IP's, proxies/VPN/TOR or just the IP used by spamers and other guys with black eye bad name).



That's how it looks like:

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2018/03/ac9d0e9f39029625a7145bbd79fe0844.png

You're welcome. The only thing that comes to mind is that they may have been farming a large number of accounts and got their IP address blacklisted.