Now that I've had more experience dealing with franky1, I feel pretty sheepish about having made this topic.
I'd like to publicly apologize to @gmaxwell, @achow101 and @BlackHatCoiner for doubting their judgment.
Please forgive my foolish admonishment regarding negative trust feedback, it was presumptuous of me and I know better now. I'm locking this thread.
Topic: Why was franky1 banned from Dev & Tech? (Read 918 times)
As mentioned, there have been a couple of cases I know of but surely many others exist.
The way I see it, if the member was posting constructively here and there but quite clearly was spamming too, depending on the content and quality of their non-spam posting there might be cases where signature banning would be preferred over a temporary ban.
Keeping those aside, now that is has happened, I do think the same for options can be considered on a case-by-case basis for banning a member on a particular board rather than temporary or even outright ban.
Yes, People were used to getting Signature bans Because of Non-Constructive posts/ Spam. From the Search Result, I found . This guy was getting a signature ban due to low-value posts. But, after merit's introduction, Users don't get a signature ban due to low-value posts. Now people get a Signature ban as an Additional ban with Temp-Ban. There was a log on BPIP for Signature banned users. According to BPIP, creeps was the last guy to get a Signature ban.
The way I see it, if the member was posting constructively here and there but quite clearly was spamming too, depending on the content and quality of their non-spam posting there might be cases where signature banning would be preferred over a temporary ban.
Keeping those aside, now that is has happened, I do think the same for options can be considered on a case-by-case basis for banning a member on a particular board rather than temporary or even outright ban.
I know some users in the past have been allowed to continue posting but were not allowed to display signatures until a specific time and that was probably due to spamming, also is not mentioned as a rule as far as I am aware.
Yes, People were used to getting Signature bans Because of Non-Constructive posts/ Spam. From the Search Result, I found . This guy was getting a signature ban due to low-value posts. But, after merit's introduction, Users don't get a signature ban due to low-value posts. Now people get a Signature ban as an Additional ban with Temp-Ban. There was a log on BPIP for Signature banned users. According to BPIP, creeps was the last guy to get a Signature ban.
He is full of shit.
I just saw one more topic full of his shit (The US government is targeting mixers) in Bitcoin Discussion, so I am starting to think he is actually working as an undercover government agent, and they pay him extra for trolling on bitcointalk forum.I am not sure what exact three letter agency he works for, but he must be very happy working in his little square box office.
Franky1 Bureau of Investigation
I don't even remember the last time I read his shit. Reading wall of texts is something I can endure when the subject is interesting but I can't stand reading wall of word salads.
I made up my mind about him long time ago.
He is full of shit.
I also remember somehow, trolling is against the "unofficial" forum rules. You may get away with it when you do it lightly on some relatively "unimportant" matters though.
I made up my mind about him long time ago.
He is full of shit.
I also remember somehow, trolling is against the "unofficial" forum rules. You may get away with it when you do it lightly on some relatively "unimportant" matters though.
I agree, I did not find anything anywhere which stated bans were just two types in either permanent or temporary but when posting I missed the other type of ban ...
There is no such ban. They pretty much just actively delete his posts in that board...
If banning a member from specific boards is considered the appropriate solution to an issue then at least they can continue posting elsewhere until the ban is lifted and if this was decided by theymos as a result of fluidity and flexibility (tweaking and/or creating new rules) sure it is a good thing.
Can't say how appropriate this decision is but ...
This is, in fact, still being enforced.
I know some users in the past have been allowed to continue posting but were not allowed to display signatures until a specific time and that was probably due to spamming, also is not mentioned as a rule as far as I am aware.
Yes, People were used to getting Signature bans Because of Non-Constructive posts/ Spam. From the Search Result, I found . This guy was getting a signature ban due to low-value posts. But, after merit's introduction, Users don't get a signature ban due to low-value posts. Now people get a Signature ban as an Additional ban with Temp-Ban. There was a log on BPIP for Signature banned users. According to BPIP, creeps was the last guy to get a Signature ban.
I agree, I did not find anything anywhere which stated bans were just two types in either permanent or temporary but when posting I missed the other type of ban that I know of because I saw at least two users issued with it: signature ban
I know some users in the past have been allowed to continue posting but were not allowed to display signatures until a specific time and that was probably due to spamming, also is not mentioned as a rule as far as I am aware.
If banning a member from specific boards is considered the appropriate solution to an issue then at least they can continue posting elsewhere until the ban is lifted and if this was decided by theymos as a result of fluidity and flexibility (tweaking and/or creating new rules) sure it is a good thing.
I know some users in the past have been allowed to continue posting but were not allowed to display signatures until a specific time and that was probably due to spamming, also is not mentioned as a rule as far as I am aware.
If banning a member from specific boards is considered the appropriate solution to an issue then at least they can continue posting elsewhere until the ban is lifted and if this was decided by theymos as a result of fluidity and flexibility (tweaking and/or creating new rules) sure it is a good thing.
I have been on the forum several years and thought the ban format was simply permanent or temporary.
Until coming across this thread never knew that members could get a ban for a specific board.
There was probably never any need to do so before, and since every decision about forum-related matters flows from Theymos, I'm thinking he's pretty much just making up new rules and adjustments to existing ones as needed. There was nothing ever written in stone about bans only being of two types. In fact, the rules are *informal* ones, even though we know they're not--but my point is that there's flexibility, which I think is a good thing.Until coming across this thread never knew that members could get a ban for a specific board.
There are probably a million separate and unrelated thoughts that run through my head on a daily basis, and it's only gotten worse with age, so bear with me and my absentmindedness.
There will be a day when you will look at your old-day posts and scratch your head and think, WTF? When Did I post that?
The human brain consists of about one billion neurons. Each neuron forms about 1,000 connections to other neurons, amounting to more than a trillion connections. Running out of space would be a problem if each neuron could only help store a single memory. You might have only a few gigabytes of storage space, similar to the space in an iPod or a USB flash drive. Yet neurons combine so that each one helps with many memories at a time, exponentially increasing the brain's memory storage capacity to something closer to around 2.5 petabytes (or a million gigabytes)
Even though it's a lot of space, You won't be able to remember everything. Your memory only remembers significant things. We all are similar except hyperthymestic syndrome people. Only 61 People were diagnosed with hyperthymestic syndrome till 2021. Sorry for the off-topic.
Actually you were aware of that;
Also, I think you can be confused because once theymos replied that:
Lol, now I'm even more confused--although obviously I'd forgotten that I'd posted about franky1 and was under the impression he'd been banned from the dev & tech section. There are probably a million separate and unrelated thoughts that run through my head on a daily basis, and it's only gotten worse with age, so bear with me and my absentmindedness. Also, I think you can be confused because once theymos replied that:
franky1 was not and is not banned. I see that some off-topic posts of his were deleted recently, though normally his posts are pretty substantive (even if I usually disagree with him).
I have been on the forum several years and thought the ban format was simply permanent or temporary.
Until coming across this thread never knew that members could get a ban for a specific board.
There was probably never any need to do so before, and since every decision about forum-related matters flows from Theymos, I'm thinking he's pretty much just making up new rules and adjustments to existing ones as needed. There was nothing ever written in stone about bans only being of two types. In fact, the rules are *informal* ones, even though we know they're not--but my point is that there's flexibility, which I think is a good thing. Until coming across this thread never knew that members could get a ban for a specific board.
I have been on the forum several years and thought the ban format was simply permanent or temporary.
Until coming across this thread never knew that members could get a ban for a specific board.
Thinking about it, that type of ban allows a member to post elsewhere thus still contributing however those that receive permanent or temporary bans have a right to ask questions about their treatment versus what other received. It creates a situation where moderators can be called in to question and it could make it an unhealthy environment.
Until coming across this thread never knew that members could get a ban for a specific board.
Thinking about it, that type of ban allows a member to post elsewhere thus still contributing however those that receive permanent or temporary bans have a right to ask questions about their treatment versus what other received. It creates a situation where moderators can be called in to question and it could make it an unhealthy environment.
I've only been on Bitcointalk for about a month, so I'm not aware of the history.
I noticed that an old ban notice was bumped and some of his recent posts have been deleted.
I just want to say that although franky1 posts a little too much for my liking, and his posts are not the easiest to read, they often contain useful points.
Maybe I haven't been exposed to his posts for long enough to find them grating, but I'll miss his direct/no-bullshit takes on things.
I'll admit that I've never bothered to fact-check any of his posts.
Can anyone give me a quick history lesson?
I noticed that an old ban notice was bumped and some of his recent posts have been deleted.
I just want to say that although franky1 posts a little too much for my liking, and his posts are not the easiest to read, they often contain useful points.
Maybe I haven't been exposed to his posts for long enough to find them grating, but I'll miss his direct/no-bullshit takes on things.
I'll admit that I've never bothered to fact-check any of his posts.
Can anyone give me a quick history lesson?
I don't know if anyone would be interested to see this. I created this topic when I was new in this forum and was searching the whole boards and threads.
Franky1 is among my 3 heroes I found in this forum. But now I have a good number of them. See this thread.
I sincerely do not think that Franky1 should be tagged because the allegations in the tag references do not carry much weight. Simply ignoring him, distrusting him or using a neutral tag would do well. But seeing the calibre of people that tagged him and considering that I was too young to say, I couldn't say.
Franky1 is among my 3 heroes I found in this forum. But now I have a good number of them. See this thread.
I brought out 3 people who has almost the same posting style and are old in this forum. I call them unsung heroes because they are my heroes even if many people may not notice them
Disclaimer: Everything written here is my personal opinion. I may be wrong or I may be right. So it should not be used for any official purpose.
These 3 people are:
FRANKY1
Registration
Franky1 registered on this forum on 3rd September, 2012.
He does not wear signature of any company, still he contributes daily in the forum. If there is statistics, he should be one of the most active users. From 2012 till date, almost 10 years and he is not tired. I can call him a genuine lover of bitcointalk. I wonder where he draws his motivation.
Trust
As old as he is in the forum, he is not trusted by a single DT member, -3. But he has been tagged for spreading FUD and trolling by Achow101 (2019). He was also tagged by gmaxwell(2018) for dishonesty and anti-bitcoin shilling, could be the reason why he is banned from the technical board. This year BlackHatCoiner tagged him for spreading FUD about Lightening network and he eventually called for Franky1's ban https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.58910999
His Strength
I don't know if he is a merit source. But he recieves merits frequently for his quality works. He does not issue merits always, but when he does, he will definitely change your merit history by issuing 50merits.
My personal opinion about Franky1
He is very intelligent. A verse thinker. I enjoy sleeping in his profile to learn but he is not aware of this. I wish he can reply and tell us his driving principles.
Disclaimer: Everything written here is my personal opinion. I may be wrong or I may be right. So it should not be used for any official purpose.
These 3 people are:
FRANKY1
Registration
Franky1 registered on this forum on 3rd September, 2012.
He does not wear signature of any company, still he contributes daily in the forum. If there is statistics, he should be one of the most active users. From 2012 till date, almost 10 years and he is not tired. I can call him a genuine lover of bitcointalk. I wonder where he draws his motivation.
Trust
As old as he is in the forum, he is not trusted by a single DT member, -3. But he has been tagged for spreading FUD and trolling by Achow101 (2019). He was also tagged by gmaxwell(2018) for dishonesty and anti-bitcoin shilling, could be the reason why he is banned from the technical board. This year BlackHatCoiner tagged him for spreading FUD about Lightening network and he eventually called for Franky1's ban https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.58910999
His Strength
- He is logical, uses real life examples to express his believes or opinions. He is known also for typing a very long wall of text when he wants to prove a point. Franky1 can decide not to be wrong even if he is wrong because he has so many ways to make his opinions stand out, see for long text https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.59331440
- He has the ability to perform even under pressure. He can stand alone even when the whole world is at the other end https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.58919861
- He is an economist and also a mathematician, he combines both skills as his unconquered armour
I don't know if he is a merit source. But he recieves merits frequently for his quality works. He does not issue merits always, but when he does, he will definitely change your merit history by issuing 50merits.
My personal opinion about Franky1
He is very intelligent. A verse thinker. I enjoy sleeping in his profile to learn but he is not aware of this. I wish he can reply and tell us his driving principles.
I sincerely do not think that Franky1 should be tagged because the allegations in the tag references do not carry much weight. Simply ignoring him, distrusting him or using a neutral tag would do well. But seeing the calibre of people that tagged him and considering that I was too young to say, I couldn't say.
but it seems to me that they've all misused the trust system out of frustration:
I don't know either. Back then, I wasn't in this forum. I understand that the Feedback system is for handling Trading risks. But, You don't have to follow the rules all the time. The feedback system has been used for managing many other things. Spreading FUD is not a joke. You will also be frustrated when you know a knowledgeable person spreading FUD even though he knows many things. But, If you strictly follow the rules, He deserves neutral.
@Fivestar4everMVP, @AnotherAlt: Yeah, you guys are probably right. I've moved it. I didn't put it on the reputation board to begin with because it felt icky (to me) like where you go to talk shit about other users.
I was just looking to understand this "ban" (which I now do).
Closing thoughts
I've got nothing more to add to this thread, but before I move on I just want to emphasize one point:
On balance, I agree with this partial ban.
But, in my opinion @gmaxwell, @achow101 and @BlackHatCoiner should reconsider their negative trust feedback on franky1's profile.
I don't know the details, but it seems to me that they've all misused the trust system out of frustration:
I was just looking to understand this "ban" (which I now do).
Closing thoughts
I've got nothing more to add to this thread, but before I move on I just want to emphasize one point:
On balance, I agree with this partial ban.
But, in my opinion @gmaxwell, @achow101 and @BlackHatCoiner should reconsider their negative trust feedback on franky1's profile.
I don't know the details, but it seems to me that they've all misused the trust system out of frustration:
The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.
Someone please correct me if am wrong, but shouldn't this post/discussion be in the reputation board? How come it's on meta Board and even with 2 pages already, no body said or made mention of it deserving to be moved.
Yes, I also think it should be on the Reputation board. But, Since a few Ban discussions happened in Meta before, I guess that was why no one asked about it. If I am not wrong, Only a Ban appeal can be created on Meta. Most of the Ban discussions were ban appeals, I guess. I don't think Powerglove's appealing to remove Franky's ban. I didn't even notice that it's on meta. If other members also agree, OP should move it to the Reputation board.
legendary
Activity: 2422
Merit: 1083
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Someone please correct me if am wrong, but shouldn't this post/discussion be in the reputation board? How come it's on meta Board and even with 2 pages already, no body said or made mention of it deserving to be moved.
I feel we are largely in agreement. I have never and would never advocate banning someone for their opinions, regardless of how ridiculous or provably incorrect those opinions are, but when your constant spamming prevents other users from having a sensible discussion then I draw the line.
I am not sure banning franky1 from Dev and Tech board will prevent him posting exact same things in all other boards if he can.This is just a bandage solution for moderators who are tired making same old discussion with him over and over again.
He obviously likes to be right all the time so I don't try getting into any deep conversation with him.
Easy solution for most people would be to click magical Ignore button for him.
It's clear franky1 doesn't like the Bitcoin Lightning Network, and unfortunately he posts this view in any thread he can. You may want to read Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain, but it gets worse after a few pages.
Can we see all the boards that is unavailable for franky?He could just create his own tech anti-LN topic to spill his ''wisdom'', and I am sure he will find enough people to talk with.
Over 90% of his posts are in last 30 days are in Bitcoin Discussion board.:
https://ninjastic.space/user/id/65837
As a newbie on the forum, Franky1 was one of those guys who I really admired and loved to read his posts on Bitcoin discussion board, even though I barely understood 60% of that he talked about.
Yes, I think it was so too for me with him. I guess at a point he had a discussion going on about experimenting the use of Bitcoin in Africa or so. I guess he was the user. I can't be too sure now.In honesty, I think the dude is knowledgeable and that tagging and banning him subforum is overboard. The best official thing to do would've been for those who don't agree with his POV to ignore him. Yes, he's seemingly arrogant in his stance and conviction and wouldn't want to take a second opinion but that shows how different we all are in optics. I won't even be shocked if in future those who think they're right now are proved to be the ones who've been wrong all this while 🤔. Yes, such a reversal of conception once happened in the past with the earth theory stuff.
Franky makes it impossible to have a normal conversation. He is the loud guy in the stands who squirts beer on everyone but doesn't think there is anything wrong with that. He is knowledgeable about Bitcoin and you can find many good posts of his. He does have a tendency to post badly formatted walls of text (I have no idea why) and he hates the Lightning Network more than anyone else I have seen. It gets to the point of being annoying. It's a shame really because he knows a lot.
Franky will just accuse someone for weird reasons. A few months ago, I created a thread discussing an altcoin that integrated Bitcoin on its blockchain. It seemed like something interesting to bring up and discuss whether or not that brings any value to Bitcoin. And then comes Franky accusing me of promoting said altcoin, shilling it, and whatnot. As my optimism that the project was any good decreased based mostly on his posts and research, he calmed down a bit. He probably understood that there were no bad intentions. But the fact remains, franky is the guy who comes at you and knees you in the guts and then stops to ask what you want and what your intentions are. No matter what you say, you deserved that beating.
Franky will just accuse someone for weird reasons. A few months ago, I created a thread discussing an altcoin that integrated Bitcoin on its blockchain. It seemed like something interesting to bring up and discuss whether or not that brings any value to Bitcoin. And then comes Franky accusing me of promoting said altcoin, shilling it, and whatnot. As my optimism that the project was any good decreased based mostly on his posts and research, he calmed down a bit. He probably understood that there were no bad intentions. But the fact remains, franky is the guy who comes at you and knees you in the guts and then stops to ask what you want and what your intentions are. No matter what you say, you deserved that beating.
What if they keep trolling you and ignore all your explanation and keep spamming?
I'll click Ignore.3. No trolling.
Quote
Trolling can lead you to ban. Am I wrong?
It can happen. But from what I have seen, it's much more likely to happen to Newbie trolls who (for instance) claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, than it is for established old members with a very strong conviction about a certain subject. 
Trolling can lead you to ban. Am I wrong?
AFAIK that happened in the past. Nobody has been banned for trolling in the recent years. At least I saw someone saying this on another thread.
Jump to: