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.

Quote from: nullius on April 15, 2020, 05:19:58 AM

Separate Argument B for a ban: ICO-bumping is spamming per se. Spamming itself is supposed to be a bannable offence. I have been quietly asking around with a n00b question: “ELI5, why are ICO-bumpers not banned out of hand? (‘ELI5’, in the sense that it is the innocent child who says that the Emperor has no clothes.)” The only response that I have thus far received is, “I don’t know.”

I respectfully request that the forum’s administration set a strict, explicit policy banning ICO-bumpers just as any other spammers. As marlboroza recently pointed out, ICO-bumping is a significant problem; and it is spam.

Meanwhile, I urge that the ban-hammer be dropped here on grounds that spammers get banned, period.

Quote from: nullius on Today at 06:13:05 PM

More generally, I am also pushing for ICO bumping to be officially recognized as spamming per se, a bannable offence. How is it not spamming!? And why do so many people seem to be ignoring this issue? What “hacker1001101001” has admitted is arguably even a more damaging form of spam than garden-variety sigspamming.

The fraudulent nature of ICO bumping is for DT to handle, to protect people from losing money. marlboroza and others have been doing an excellent job with that. I support their efforts; and I encourage to continue, whereas ICO-bumpers are apparently not being banned, for reasons that are inscrutable to me.

Paid forum spam, spam-tactics, and spam-support of all kinds must to be handled by the administration, with the ban hammer.

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 ( ;-):

Quote from: mprep on March 05, 2020, 04:00:46 PM

PMs not being private isn't one of those cases where I feel that a lack of a rule requires documentation (especially considering the aforementioned warning). If a user couldn't infer the fact from the warning itself, I really doubt documenting it in this thread would help.

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.

Quote from: mprep on March 05, 2020, 04:00:46 PM

As for legal side of information disclosure, I'd rather stay away from documenting how Bitcointalk might deal / deals with legal queries, demands and requests [...]

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

Quote from: Saint-loup on March 05, 2020, 05:46:39 PM

Nullius forgot to quote this in his (pretty long) post

Quote from: theymos on March 04, 2020, 11:57:22 PM

PMs are like emails. It's rude to publish a PM without permission, but you won't get banned for it.

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