Topic: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ - page 39. (Read 1048231 times)

Question - Are there exceptions to this rule? Are posts like this, this or this considered okay?

Fixed the example numbers, thanks. Added you to the credits as well. As hilariousandco said, it's being discussed among staff, however, many suggestions hit the ease of moderation argument as the more complex the rules, the harder it will be for us to notice them and enforce them, although the bump button did sound like something easier to manage.

This would make it so people who offer things for sale that change often would not be able to bump long before they have sold everything. I have probably bumped by account selling thread well over 100 times, and the information contained has probably changed close to as many times. The point is that the exact item being sold could potentially change multiple times or the inventory/prices may change multiple times over several months.

Additionally it would hurt people offering various services, like escrow, as they would only be able to bump their thread once every three days over three months before not being able to bump it anymore.

I do like the idea of a bump button verses bumping a thread with a post, although it would need to be able to be customized somewhat in order to give some level of an update.

I think the rules regarding bumping auction threads should also be clarified as many people tend to bump auction threads multiple times per day giving how much time is left in the auction - it should also be noted that auction posts cannot be edited so the author of an auction is not able to edit their posts in order to give an update

Yeah, this can be silly when people bump their threads daily for months with clearly very little likelihood of making a sale. I think a better option for those with multiple listings would be to create one thread with links to all their listings and bump that instead of all the others individually (and/or stick the link to your thread in your signature). I made a couple of suggestions in the staff forum recently for changes to the bump rule such as banning manual bumping and adding a bump button which will push your thread to the top without having to post and it will only let you use it once per 24 hours. Also possibly limiting the total amount of bumps you can make could be a good idea (maybe something like 30 before you can no longer make any more bumps).

Hey, I was wondering if there could be some discussion of the bump rule in the marketplace section.

I think that in addition to the 24 hour per thread limit, there should be some sort of limit on how often a user can bump multiple threads. This is a problem because some users have 5+ active threads that they will bump at once, leading to a lot of clutter. At times the first 10 topics are only from 2 or 3 different people. I think a 2 thread per 1 hour limit on bumping would be reasonable, since it would solve the problem while still allowing people to have multiple active threads. This rule wouldn't even apply to most people, since it is rare to have more than 2 marketplace threads at once.

Another small thing I would like to point out is that the "examples" section under the rule list seems to be misnumbered, but this isn't really a big deal, just thought mprep might want to correct it.

Thanks for the clarification!

One post in total unless explicit permission has been received from the admin(s) to do otherwise. And no, updates of said post every X days is not allowed.

Thanks for the answer.
Do you mean with one post really only one post in the thread?
( or would be a update every x days ok too?)

Yes, there is a problem. As per the old BadBear's rule, posting any kind of service (pool, exchanges, etc.) in a coin thread would be prohibited, but after discussing with PMing with him some time ago, I managed to allow one post per thread (only for pools, exchanges, block explorers though) about their service (more so a "we're up" message). Unless you have explicit permission from one of the admins, you are not allowed to post more than one of such post per thread.

EDIT: Changed the OP FAQ by creating a new section at the bottom called "Legacy questions (no longer relevant)" and moved the question about the avatars there. Kind of keeping it in case I need it for whatever reason.

hi guys i have a question regarding multipools.

in this case its about an official pool of an altcoin.
why is there a problem with pool updates every two days in the corresponding altcoin ann?
especially if nobody of the coin community is complaining about it?

@mprep

i just saw you posting here too, to be precise its about the BTCD ann and crackfoo's pool

(actually just realize you are the OP )

It wasn't theymos. One of the global mods, that is SaltySpitoon, stickied it but I guess theymos doesn't object.

Finally got sticky! Thanks theymos!

There are a multitude of reasons for not banning multiple accounts. One reason is indeed that it would be too difficult to reliably do so, why make a rule that you can't enforce? Also, people have the right to pseudonymity/free speech. Allowing people to have multiple accounts is pretty useful for certain situations. For example, if I had a strong unpopular political opinion, and I spoke about it on this account, I'd have people pming me to annoy me about it, distracting me from more important things. Same thing is true with business owners. If you own a Bitcoin business, having another account to represent your personal opinions and having another account to represent your business is often a good move. You look a lot less professional if you are getting into arguments with people as a respected business person.

As far as buying/selling accounts, again it can't be enforced. They could arranged account sales through encrypted methods through PM, off site, etc. Just allowing it makes it publicly known that its something that happens. If we banned account sales, and then someone got scammed by an account that was purchased/sold, people would be upset at the forum for not protecting them as promised.

Something a lot of people don't seem to think of, is that this forum is about conversation. The fact that it has a section for people to trade is secondary. Bitcointalk isn't a Bitcoin classified site, we aren't going to create rules that negatively effect the site's purpose just for a single section that is a secondary priority. There are Bitcoin market sites out there that deal exclusively in trading items for Bitcoins. They probably have more strict rules for helping people buy/sell things, but I doubt their forum policy is as developed as this forum's.

It's been discussed before, how difficult it is to catch multiple users if they are doing it right, at the moment I say allow it and let them get lazy and mess up. Otherwise, if it was a solid rule they could step up their game and be harder to find out.

Yup, as long as they don't go overboard and start posting banners or whole promotional speeches. If they just post a link and say that they use it, like it, get that much from it than it should be fine.

Let me clarify... if someone started tread like "what good dogecoin faucets you know?" and everyone starts writing messages with referral links, then this is ok?

Even if we made it a rule it wouldn't stop it from happening. People are allowed multiple accounts for several genuine reasons and limiting proxy or tor use would punish a lot of said genuine users.

Interesting reading on the  rules etc.

Q: I saw a guy selling Bitcointalk accounts. Why is that allowed?
A: Since we can't effectively prevent these sales (proxies, TOR, sales in other forums), we don't because otherwise we would be giving the users a false sense of security.


why would this be giving the user a false sense of security. If a person sells an account then that other person might of already been banned or suspended in the past or done something illegal or traded or scammed and just got a new account with no limits on it. This only promotes for making it simpler for people to get away with doing or brake TOS and rules and repeating getting banned on an account coming back and scamming again.

Rules should have it 1 account 1 account only if you get banned you can not make another account up. Proxy access should be also suspended and not used as it will keep the risk and also prevention of scammers coming back joining and be a lot more cleaner of scammers. Giving the ability to buy an account just evades ban rules and defies any of your rules or regulations in place for that person to oversee them rules by making a new account bypassing or buying an account and bypassing rules in place. Sort of contradicting your own rules in place than being a false sense of security.

Well done! the topic is sticky now, congratulations and great job making this specially for us the newbies, thank you

Just wondering about the need to add such a note when the thread title already states "Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ". Maybe people here have difficulties to understand the meaning of words, even when free dictionaries like wordreference.com exists? Also saying When deciding if a user has broken the rules, the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules to me seems plain clair that mods & admin have the final say over something against the well-being of forum (the thing rules are made to secure) no matter someone will cry in Meta.
IMHO, adding a note like yours could only make new users more insecure over the rules governing this forum.

Just my 2 satoshi, however.