To ban a contributing member like BlindMayorBitcorn for basically nothing, and to allow the rampant trollfest from NLC&sockpuppets, is in my opinion completely insane, makes no sense whatsoever, and is really really backwards.
If you guys care about this forum, reinstating newbie jail, would be a better move than banning BlindMayorBitcorn for a +1 or whatever.
I have been in touch with the admins regarding this in the past.
Also the constant references to pedophilia seem to be ok? complete overt racism is ok, spamming the thread for months and months on end is ok... but a +1 or a short post is not?
Someone needs to pull their head out of their arse imho.
400 billion times this ^
The problem is that
he is not wearing a paid sig ad, so for the staff
his post are all substantial and he is not trying to boost his post count.*NLC
Odd logic this..
It is not my logix, but (I think) the forum team's logic. They will ban only who is wearing a sig add and post insubstantial message here at bitcointalk.org . However, NLC is a troll and "be a troll" isn't against the forum rules, isn't it (correct me).
I don't think he was trying to boost his post count. I think he is regarded within the community as being someone that meaningfully contributes when he posts (I say this because carra23 is someone that tends to reject most people that apply to his campaigns and also, based on a number of reports, tends to actively ask people if they want to join based on
criteria - I would assume that it is based on post quality), and as a result was actively asked to join a paid signature deal, which he agreed to (this is after a very long history of not wearing a paid signature). After he joined, his posting habits did not appear to change, and consisted of a lost of pictures poking fun of the subject at hand along with generally short posts.
I would say that based on the fact that he had a history of not wearing a paid signature, was actively asked to participate in the paid signature deal (assuming this can be substantiated), and the fact that he has made 58 out of the 60 required posts to receive payment in only 5 days (but has 30 days to finish) would mean that he would probably not fall under the category as a "signature spammer" and a 'paid sig + insubstantial posts' ban is probably not in order.