Topic: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ - page 7. (Read 1068563 times)

I was going over the rules and spotted something that needs just a tiny detail updated.


The max depth is 4, but I don't know if that was what you meant when you said "up until Trust depth 3."

Added additional details to rule 13 (+ an explanation for the rule):

You mean those rules?


You only need to delete your old bumps (keeping the last one).

Then how about this:

Limit Posting of ref links:
-only once.
-only in one specific Board (Off-Topic)
-only for thread starters, project owners.
-only with a bit slight of advertising.
Ex: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54259534

Note: (There is no ref link on that link yet)
-No redundant threads for ref links/advertising promos.

---

Violating  the rules for ref links:
-Temp Ban 30 days
-Perma Ban

---

This is only my suggestion, just to have a clear thought on ref links (and just to be clear, am not pushing it so I can post some ref link ✌😁). And for users not to be confused anymore in the future.

Don't mean to deviate too much and not even sure if it matters, but are sirius and Cøbra considered to be the same person?  

AFAIK there may be certain rare cases where posting a referral link is allowed. Changing the wording into a blanket ban wouldn't accurately reflect that. That and it'd also distance it from the source material.

I see...
Then I may suggest to give a little change for rule number 4. ✌😁 to make it "No Referral Codes (Ref Links)" removing the word "spam" on it to avoid being confused of users in the future.

Naficopa is just making his own rules up. In general referral links aren't allowed with very few exceptions. Spam doesn't mean posting something more than once and therefore once is ok. Anything is spam if it's unwanted.

Then what if I'm the creator of the thread just like this👇
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/raffleledger-x-tron-promotion-5241953
(more likely Iam advertising Ledger's event) but instead of just the address of the contest,... will put a ref link. How can I consider that to be off/on topic, if the ref link will be put on the OP?

(Please use a simple English, my head actually hurts whenever I read your posts ✌️😂)

On grounds of simple logic, I was sure that Naficopa must be wrong; at least, that is a quite twisted definition of “spam”.  (Compare what n.a.n.a.e. called “one bite of the apple” arguments by e-mail spammers who claim it’s not spam, if they blast out only one advertisement to millions of people who never asked for it, then “respect” opt-out.)  However, I did a brief search to confirm; whereupon I found that Naficopa was only partly incorrect, insofar as the ref link must be on topic (not merely “posted [only] once”):


That referred to this—I have redacted the reflink url in this quote:

Subject: Re: How to become a bitcoin millionaire

So...  That was explicitly permitted by theymos.

I urge the administration to reconsider this policy.  It is not beneficial to high-quality discussion; and it conflicts with at least the spirit of this:


To be clear, I am not opposed to all advertising in posts.  If somebody is creating substantial high-quality content, and (say) links to a variety of relevant commercial resources, that seems to be a reasonable way for people to support their own good work; that is specifically what dogie was doing, in the wider context of theymos’ statement about ads in posts.  I also sometimes see forum accounts created to promote a specific service, where it’s clear that that is what they are doing; everybody expects for, say, a company account to favourably mention the company’s own products or services.  However, arbitrary reflinks are pernicious because it is easy for a user to slip in actual spam in an underhanded manner.  It opens the way for deceptiveness by shill accounts created for advertising, which just pretend to be helpful; and it can also have a corrupting effect on ordinary users, just as special consideration given to magazine reviewers can and does corrupt their reviews.

It is also annoying to anybody who has deliberately avoided the perverse incentives created by referral links in posts.  Surely I am not the only one who can say this:  I am quite sure that in popular posts where people were likely to click, I have occasionally recommended sites which have referral programs.  I have not even bothered signing up for any of those.  I never even thought about that, except for sometimes considering that maybe I should put a reflink in my signature.  I just consider reflinks in post bodies to be spam—unless it is similar to what dogie was doing, or otherwise clearly-marked and clearly benign advertising in content that actually contributes to the forum; and I behave accordingly for my own part.  If forum rules disagree, then perhaps I should take advantage?  

---

Edit 2020-04-22, an historic and historical footnote:  The foregoing inspired me to finally add a paid reflink to my signature.  It is the principle of the matter—and good, honest crypto-fun!

Just wanted to ask about
Rule No. 4

And I just want to have a clear thought before I proceed.(well, I accidentally post my referral link but already change it)

Does referral link like this 👇 allowed?
https://contest-tron.ledger.com/124804/10175054

The Rule says:
No referral code (ref link) spam.

Is it allowed if I only post it once?

I also saw this post:

Thank you, mprep.  Bottom line up front:


I do understand the struggle to keep your unofficial rules list readable; for otherwise, its purpose would be defeated.  Accordingly, I did not try to push my previous suggestion about PMs; you were quite right that at least, people should heed the warning they see every time they see a PM.  Here, however, I suggest that there is a significant problem that can be better addressed by measures including a succinct user-educational note in the rules list, as well as mod reports (as you have been discussing with Lauda) and publicly urging that spammers be banned (a matter that I am taking up on other threads).


Obviously, multiple formal, well-known rules are violated by paid bumps of ICOs which are totally off-topic in Games and Rounds, and are usually paid in shitcoins.  (Also obviously, that is definitional spam as I said—whereas now, I am referring to the forum’s rules.)  Forum users should be guided accordingly.

If you're dissatisfied with how moderation functions, have suggestions on how to improve it and / or wish to appeal deletion of your posts, you're free to PM theymos, who's the policy maker on Bitcointalk. I can (like any other user on Bitcointalk) give suggestions and my opinion, but I don't make the policy, I enforce it and (in this thread's context) document it (though in an unofficial manner). I personally am not aware of any "moderators exercising extreme biases and misjudgements" though I am very far from omniscient and, as you've pointed out, might be oblivious to such bad actors.

You are indeed correct, this case is b). However, the evidence being adequate here is not the case and certainly not if you factor in OP's track record. Regarding the off-topic posts, the only thing that got deleted so far is my own on-topic post in which I criticize the lack of moderation too. Looks like lack of transparency has huge downsides, as only theymos and Cyrus can see who this was. Maybe it is time for some changes? You yourself could be oblivious to other moderators exercising extreme biases and misjudgements due to lack of this (as far as I know you can not see who handled the report either).

If one or more reports went unhandled for a long time, it's either:

a) A bunch of moderators looked into the case no one was sure whether the report warranted action
b) The report requires in-depth understanding of the discussion, the situation at hand and /or access to data unavailable to regular moderators before an action is made.

Glancing over the title and posts of that thread, this seems to be scenario b). While I'm not implying that this is such a situation, when it comes to assessing accusations, quite often said accusations are based off of circumstancial, speculative and / or flimsy evidence. While different moderators might place the bar of required sophistication of evidence at slightly different heights, in quite a few cases the only ones who can (with reasonable certainty) confirm or deny the allegations are the admins since they have access over tools no one else on staff has (e.g. checking IPs) and in the case of theymos, the head admin, have the authority of the final word on everything related to Bitcointalk moderation.

Here you go, pick which you prefer to handle first: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.220. You get to choose from off-topic posting from several members to dozens of ICO bumping accounts. Using the report to moderator tools seems to have been backfiring lately, especially reporting off-topic trolling or diversion.

If someone reported a topic and / or its posts using the "Report to Moderator" link and the moderator reviewing the case (be it me or someone else) noticed a rule being broken, appropriate punishment is dished out. Whether that's a ban, deletion of posts and / or topic or something else depends on the specifics of each case.

Yet pretty much every ICO bumping service is breaking all the ones that you have listed (fake conversations per definition break all 3 and they are paid in tokens or altcoins usually). What are you doing about them?

That's already covered by the list of rules since it:

1) Limits thread bumps to once per 24 hours.
2) Prohibits users from incentivizing posting (or, consequently, participating in such incentivized posting) in one or more specific threads if the incentive is an altcoin.
3) Limits incentivized posting to Games and Rounds (where only Bitcoin giveaways are considered on-topic)

Here are the corresponding rules:


I might try to work the "you can only incentivize posting in a Games and Rounds topic" into the rules at some point, but I'm not sure whether I should do so and if I should, how to do so properly because each rule added bloats the thread to the point where it becomes useless for the average casual user (the audience this thread was aimed at in the first place).

I request that the rules list be reviewed and updated with appropriate guidance to users about the form of spam known as ICO bumping.

It is obviously spam by any reasonable (or even useful) definition of the word.  I don’t think anybody can reasonably argue that users should not already expect to be banned for it, just as for any other form of spam.  Nevertheless, on grounds that more user education is usually better than less, I suggest that it would be wise to give this issue an explicit treatment in the unofficial rules list that everybody is supposed to read.

Unfortunately, I myself do not know and could not readily find any relevant quotes from administrators or staff on this issue; I would appreciate if somebody could provide some.

---

---

Separately, just a few little notes on a request I consider currently closed; I didn’t want to spam-bump this thread for these last month ( ;-):


I agree that the warning should suffice; I only requested an explanation in the rules list after in the wild, I noticed multiple instances of experienced, highly-ranked forum users implying that publication of PMs was against the rules, and/or incorrectly stating explicitly that PM means “Private Message”.  Anyway, I think that I understand your reasoning; thanks for explaining.


Understood.  The unofficial rules list is indeed probably not the proper place to deal with legal issues.

---

I didn’t “forget”.  I did not see that post before I made mine here.