Quote from: achow101 on October 20, 2016, 01:03:41 PM

Quote from: deisik on October 20, 2016, 08:56:37 AM

As Fedor Dostoevsky said, better acquit ten guilty men than punish one innocent. I understand that forum administration has the right to do what they want, but would this be quite in line with their own Constitution and ten Commandments?

Or are laws carved in stone rewritten in blood?

What does that have to do with anything?

Obviously, I was referring to forum rules and guidelines, or "laws" as you yourself call them. Did you really not get it?

Quote from: achow101 on October 20, 2016, 01:03:41 PM

Quote from: deisik on October 20, 2016, 08:56:37 AM

I have to disagree, for the sake of justice. Bitmixer.io is not part of BTCT, so they cannot possibly be found guilty or faulty by the forum laws. But if we extended the forum rules on them, even in that case they cannot be convicted and sentenced. Why should they try to enforce their own anti-spam rule if this is exactly what mods should do? I don't like shit posters maybe even more than you, but you are evidently trying to first humanize and then villainize the service. Right now I can't come up with a decent solution in respect to how resolve such and similar issues, but outright banning services would be highly counterproductive...

Think of it this way. The participants in the sig campaign are like employees of the company who are hired in and work in a "foreign country" (bitcointalk). According to the doctrine of Respondeat superior, the employer (bitmixer.io) is responsible for any illegal actions of the employee as long as the actions were done within the scope of the employer-employee relationship. In this case, that relationship is that the employer wants the employee to post on Bitcointalk. The "laws" of Bitcointalk state that you are not allowed to shitpost, and that "law" falls under the scope of the employer-employee relationship for sig campaigns. Thus the service is responsible for their sig campaign participants and any "illegal" actions that the participants engage in while posting on this forum (i.e. shit posting)

Okay, but why we don't see users banned in massive amounts for shitposting who don't wear any signature at all? For example, a good part of new users are posting complete junk, but I don't see any of them banned for just that. As I see it, the mods are shrinking from banning users (and that's good in fact) and just trying to shift responsibility to a service which is not in any way affiliated with Bitcointalk. But why would the service care if the Bitcointalk moderators themselves are not following their own "laws" in respect to shit posters. This seems to be the primary reason why services such as Bitmixer are made into scapegoats...

Could I call that a sort of guilt sublimation?

Quote from: achow101 on October 20, 2016, 01:03:41 PM

If the service has been warned multiple times that their participants are shit posting but do nothing about it, then what are we supposed to do? If we leave them alone, more shit posters will continue to join. If we continue to ban the shit posters, more shit posters will still join. The only way to stop that endless cycle is to prevent shit posters from joining. The only way to do that is to outright ban their signature campaign, not necessarily ban them from the forum, but ban them from creating a sig campaign so that they are no longer paying people to shit post

But if the service is legit as it seems to be, allegedly does a lot of good to Bitcoin as well as attracts a lot of new users into it, would banning it do more harm than good in the long run even if the majority of their posters are posting pure crap?

In this way, punishing the service itself looks counterproductive, but I seem to repeat myself