Bitcoin Forum

My goal when adding people to the Default Trust network was to help clean up the garbage posting on this forum. I understand people are all worked up over sea of red that ensued after my adding The Pharmacist and actmyname to DT2. I would love to hear some suggestions on how to make this fair for everyone. The useless posting makes this place pretty much useless for most people and it needs to get fixed. Most of the red users I have seen are guilty of shit posting for pay. I have also seen some suggestions that sounded good like drop a red for a week and if they clean it up remove the red and leave a neutral. I think everyone should be able to join a campaign and earn some coins, but the spam is out of control and no one can seem to fix it so far...

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam? So far I see no reason that negative trust can not be used to stop these spammers. If I leave a neutral then they are free to continue spamming etc... I look forward to some ideas on what to do here.

As for newbies I like to suggest to give them a little bit freedom, like it's okay if they reply on threads with just a short message, or they posted similar but not exactly the same topic,.. Some
Let them learn and explore.

But when they reach and started Jr. Member rank, and they still doing the same, atleast send a PM to inform them about their wrong doing or their repeated mistakes, the next if they does do it again then give them a red mark or the negative trust with the Right and PROPER comment,
Lastly is the warning message let's take 3 warning letter with response letter like apology letter, explanation letter, 4th warning comes with a one month account band, 5th time is 2-3 months band with a fee, then lastly permanent band,.

It's only a suggestion on my part, but I am so happy if some of them Can be carried out Bearcats don't like my account just to be band with out any warning or explanation....

Let me add my opinion if possible.

I don't have a problem with the tagging at all. My concern is the way it is being delivered. The delivery is as if arrogantly given without even investigating furthermore(correct me if I am wrong). Although some have already been proven, the credibility score of the tagging is not 100% accurate which I don't totally agree. Which makes not tagging the worst of the worst.

*This should not be an issue of where the users came from, tagging should be in a proper manner and in a way the user would understand why he/she had been tagged.

---

I think having a global standard for tagging might be a good idea and not just using their own standards whos to tag or not removing the thoughts of being "Biased" to his/her decision.

New negative trust color:
Red color :  Scammers
Yellow color : Spammers

That seems like a rather *simple* change, that might just be effective enough. I'd be interested in hearing what others think about it.

---

Although that yellow is hard on the eyes. Maybe orange? Spammers

And now can you translate it to English?


No,you were right, and I hope you will not remove The Pharmacist and actmyname from your trust list, and they will not stop either.

Exactly


My opinion is that we should wait to see the results after at least two or three weeks.
Let's see if the risk of getting tagged and ending up with an useless account for which they have "worked" months if not years is enough to change their attitude....in my opinion it should be


As long as bounty campaigns managers that accept spammers will be tagged as scammers.

In my humble opinion, lots of aspects need to be addressed to prevent spam here.

1. First we need to define what is spam like what types of posts will be considered as spam. A proper guideline will help many people to improve themselves.

2. Mega threads should be locked for not giving room to spammers.

3. Most sig. campaigns enforce minimum post limits. This enforces people to write even they do not have enough points to write.

The punishment for spammers should be similar to

Lets go one step further, don't call it trust, thats a marketplace thing. I dont necessarily distrust spammers, they are an annoyance.
Add a second way to rate users, call it post score (or something similar), the system itself could even work the same way the trust system works (with only minor adjustments).
Might even add options to hide the post scores completely, if you do not care about that sort of governance/moderation.

Thanks for stepping up, I can't deny it made me smile a bit seeing so many accounts with zero post quality suddenly complain about a trust rating they received months ago.

I would love to see shitposters becoming more careful and creating better posts when they fear for red trust, but I don't have much hope of that happening.
Ultimately, I would prefer to see shitposters banned instead of tagged. I like strict rules: insubstantial posts aren't allowed, if most of a user's posts are worthless, he shouldn't be allowed to post at all. But this has been discussed in many topics, just like the suggestions to punish campaign managers who pay shitposters, but these suggestions didn't get enforced.

Do you mean cleaning up their post history by asking them to delete all bad posts on their own? I like it! Most will have to delete up to 90% or more, and after that it should be quite easy to quickly check whether they did a good job or not.

I think some people just lack the capacity to type useful posts on this forum, and if their only motivation to post here is to join a campaign, it can only end in shitposting.

Although I wouldn't tag them by myself, I do appreciate it.

May I suggest to let this "experiment" run for a month, to see if it has any effect on the total number of useless posts?
And, adding to my blue text: can this be tested? If The Pharmacist and actmyname are in for it, I suggest to create a Meta thread where "red tagged shitposters" can volunteer. If needed, I'd be willing to check some post histories too.


The length of a post has nothing to do with it's quality and relevance.

Repeating the same over and over again on hundreds of pages isn't helping this forum.

You can do that by reading much more than you post.

It's already impossible to check posts for tens of thousands of accounts. Having to do it more than once makes it even more work. Giving up to 5 warnings as you suggested doesn't solve the spam problem.
Besides, I'm pretty sure most spammers use many different accounts. Giving them 5 different warnings on dozens of accounts is impossible. They know they create useless posts, but they don't care.

You get a warning when some of your posts get deleted by Moderators. It's up to you what you do with that warning.

With what goal? Giving campaigns the choice to accept spammers but not scammers? That doesn't make sense, neither one should be given any incentive to post.


Do you really think spammers would read them? Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0) (by hilariousandco) give a good indication of what is expected.

Report them! I once quickly made a list of 20 spam megathreads (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1777744.msg22355828#msg22355828) based on post histories from a certain campaign, and 14 of them are deleted now. A central thread in Meta may be good for this (just like I did for copy/pasting (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895)).

If something can be said in 5 words, it shouldn't be extended into 20. It's okay not to get paid for all posts.


Considering the number of accounts some people have, I expect this to be abused to silence people. I wouldn't mind a simple + or - to click at each post though (idea taken from Vod, who owes me a +1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2751964.msg28660369#msg28660369)), maybe with extra weight for topic starters.

The same could be said for the trust system.
Establish some rules about what ratings influence a post score by what factor,
in the most blunt way, create a DefaultRating account and do the whole DT stuff once again.

(I'm sure people could come up with a better idea how to handle this, just a simplified example.)

Right now as it stands we have 3 colors to choose from when leaving Feedback.    Red:Meant For Scammers   Black Bold: Meant for a positive transaction/Sale/Service  Black: Neutral Feedback Meant for an OK transaction or a Watch out not what was agreed upon.

We should have

Red: Scammers/thieves   Red gives you a sense of Danger stay away. It's to be Expected of Scammers and thieves.

Orange: Based on suspicion. Could be used for Acct. Farmers/Sales Acts that may show Scamming activity.

Brown: A shitty Color. Could be used for Spammers or Shitposters.

Black Bold: A Good transaction sale/buy.  The way it was meant to be.

Black: Neutral an ok transaction or could have been better. Just a heads up for the next person.

Green:  For DT Members only. Based upon their Work on the forum and outing scammers/shit posters/Acct farmers.

Green DT should be reviewed and appointed or demoted By the Admins Only.

What do you think?  Just an Idea.
[/quote]


I suggested this. Dunno if anyone agrees or not.

Blazed, I really don't think we must use the Trust system to stop spammers, unless that system is changed.

I like this idea, just definitely not yellow but another easy-to-read color.
I hope theymos writes his thoughts about this.

The idea would be that campaign managers don't allow either. The distinction would be for dealers who know yellow (orange or whatever) is not related to trading trust.

---

Other options would be to improve the SMAS list and ask (force?) campaign managers to use it; and other ideas discussed here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2605767.0), but not with the current Trust system.

Scammers and spammers should be kept in 2 different groups (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2806168.msg28717424#msg28717424).

No.

Trashed*.

No.

While your suggestion is more advanced, and thus likely to be more useful, you are forgetting the simplicity of implementation. Adding another option to the current trust system should not be *too hard*. Implementing a whole separate system is, and I doubt theymos is going to do it given how little time he spends on this forum as is.

Horrible suggestion. Put that back into the garbage bin.

I really like this idea (besides that yellow color). We would need Theymos to add something like this, but it would probably do the trick. I agree using "Trust" is not ideal, but its the only tool we regular users have.

Another idea which could work, something like merging the SMAS list into the trust system:

• On every profile, besides Trust, there's an option to mark user as spammer
• This instantly makes that user's signature invisible for the user who marked him, or add him into the ignore list, to be decided
• If the user who marked him is on DT1 or DT2; staff; or any other list to be decided, then the marked user losses the right to wear a signature. This way, it's not up to signature managers to allow them into a campaign or not. The forum would disable the signature for him

Some details should be discussed, but that would be the idea.

Most of the recent complaints are not really about the red trust itself, but because they can't now participate in any signature campaigns.
Giving a "spammer" tag is not going to help. People running the campaigns will just add naturally the rule "No red trust + No orange trust"
Then what? People will continue to complain because they now have a spammer tag which gives the same result of the red trust for their activity here.

Blazed wants to "be fair to everyone", it's of course ok. Do you think it's fair for us to read tons of garbages, reading 15 pages of topics to see there are only 5 good posts in? Why the forum should be fair to people who contaminate the forum. Ok for the members with broken English it's maybe rude to give them a red trust, (maybe a warning and asking to improve their English can be enough) But oh man, all the posts that give nothing more than frustration to the reader, re-using arguments that have been posted 20 times in the same topics, the people who open a thread with the sole purpose to give the opportunity to others (and their alt accounts) to post generic replies

What about closing the topics of the managers who don't care about the posts quality of their participants, to give them a warning/red trust/whatever

But, but! *insert complain from a shitposter*: The DT1/2 members can't participate in a signature campaign themselves, or it is obvious abuse!! ::)

---

This is the kind of bullshit that that suggestion will receive, although I like the idea (something similar was proposed via bans a long time ago).

If this will be enforced on all campaigns (including "Bounties"), I totally agree this is a very good solution. Your other idea (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2816647.msg28843644#msg28843644) to disable signatures from anyone with a DT-spammer-tag instantly takes care of this.


True, they'll still complain, but a spammer-tag fits better than using a scammer-tag for a different purpose.

I like this. A lot.
The limitation of SMAS right now is that it doesnt have a full impact.
People who get blacklisted can search campaigns that dont enforce SMAS rules and continue their habits there.

If the forum would get on board with an approach like this, the impact would be magnitudes higher.

The only solution is to limit each thread topic in Bitcoin Discussion up to 24 hours only (forum standard time), Because even if the topic is relevant/necessary the majority of it to be spammed is up to 100%.

The Orange tag will only indicate that you are a shitposter you're still labeled, and a lot of color tag will only confused the new member of this forum and it will be laborious, However if it will be implemented who cares?. The solution with the tagging is a sign petition in Meta 1 to 2 month review for doing something unnecessary in the eye of the DT.

Quite like the sound of this system. Something which is separate from the trust system is needed to deal with the spammers currently. Campaign managers would still decide who they let in, but this would likely filter out the majority of poor posters. Possibly put this forward to theymos and see what sort of input he has too it.

It'll probably need some tweaks, and determining the list would be tricky as I believe it should be completely separate from the trust system. Staff would probably be the best to be put on this list, but they are struggling with the workload of their moderating jobs so probably wouldn't have time to add users to this list.

An unjust solution.
Being on that list is a ticket to hide any member's signature(mark user as a spammer is a check mark "No one can know you or Grievance against your decision").

1. Give negative ratings to spammers (for at least a month)
2. Upon reviewing their newly created posts (after a month):
   a. If they improve, a neutral should be given.
   b. If there's no significant improvement, then the rating should stay permanently (if someone doesn't take the second chance that will be given to them (in order to improve), they certainly don't deserve to be allowed to post or rather earn through posting).

Can you clarify the highlighted part? Is it what "LoyceV have said earlier (https://archive.fo/B8pi6#selection-4111.0-4115.136)" or you meant to give them a chance (after giving the negative rating for a week) and review their posts (after a week) and if they had a significant improvement, then a neutral is given? If it's the latter, then a week is too soon. A period of a month should be mandatory (majority won't improve significantly in a single week).

No, you were not. This should've been done a year ago.

Best idea so far. I'd like to modify it a bit:

At least 6 DT2 members or 3 DT1 members are needed, in order for a user to lose the ability to wear a signature (this way it will be less prone to abuse).[/list]

Exactly! And therefore that would stop incentivizing spammers to spam

To be discussed. The system could show who marked the user as spammer. And there could be an option for others to unmark him if they disagree or if the post quality improved.

Then there could be a formula to decide whether or not to remove the signature rights, just like users can have an overall positive trust if someone trusted left them negative feedback and several others left positive trust later.

6 and 3 sound too much to me to be honest. But there should be a method to prevent non-spammers to be affected because a single DT user didn't like his post, either by initially requiring more than one tag or by allowing others to untag, as stated above.

So a "spammer" tag would be introduced and that spammer tag would then remove a signature if X amount of spammer tags have been added by DT members?  I need to think this through but it sounds interesting.

One note: the number of 'spammer' tags should maybe be calculated on a percentage to accommodate the DT list growing or reducing.

Would there then need to be a way to counter spammer tags if others think it is an inappropriate rating?

Only a DT would be able to tag a spammer, right? Otherwise, everybody will tag everybody and I smell the "he tagged me with his alt accounts to get a slot in the campaign XYZ!!!" :D

I'm a big fan of this, especially regarding the third part of the suggestion. I think that part is near crucial though. Without this, we will just reach a similar issue that we are having currently where people are getting all riled up and not much is actually changing.

---

What about the spam problems outside of Bitcoin Discussion?

I'm unsure quite what you mean about it being laborious. Laborious for who? The people that volunteer to do it?

---

It could perhaps be an interesting idea to have a special list of users that use this system, and only this system (unrelated to DT). I know for a fact that I wouldn't trust certain DT members to judge post quality, where as I would with others that aren't necessarily on the network (perhaps rightfully so).

---

I'm not sure I'd go for Orange, as that is already in use by the Trust system. I don't have a good alternative though, and may be overthinking it.

---

This has been said multiple times, and theymos has said publicly that this won't happen. Therefore, we as a community should try to find a way around.

How can we prevent system misuse?(keep hiding some signature).
Remember we do not have a clear definition of spam.

---

generally, I agree with you. this is the best solution because signatures are the main reason for the spammers.
I do not know if theymos will agree with you because he already make  Serious discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=250.0) section

The same way it is (in theory) prevented right now?
Theymos managing DT and thus selecting DT1, DT1 managing and selecting DT2.

It's not about the system deciding something is spam or not.
It's about the system deciding whether or not a person gets to wear a signature based on their "spam score" "post reputation" (whatever it might be called).
Eg can you wear a signature if 2 (trusted) people marked you as spammer? No, probably. What if 2 people marked you as spammer and 2 marked your posts as good.
Cases like this.

A test section and at best a tiny band-aid. This can't be the full, permanent solution.

Actually it worked to me. I noticed that my latest posts have been somehow useless, now I am paying more attention to what I am writing. But it would have been if the user get warned before receiving the red trust.
Although I still do not consider my red trust label to be fair.

I do like Ecuamobi's proposal.

I like the idea of the balance of 2 (or other number) trusted members marking your posts as spam, then the SMAS would kick in and remove the sig block automatically. The balance coming in where if 2 (or other number) trusted members mark your posts as good and then you would go to neutral and your sig block comes active again. The separate spam marker would help with this and it's a "fair" way to mark spammers.  

Absolutely, I'm not giving 3 suggestions but 1. I consider the 3rd part extremely important too.

By:

• Managing the list. People can be removed from the list if they wrongfully tag people as spammers
• By requiring more than one person to tag a person to remove signature privileges. I'd say 2 tags are enough
• By allowing others to untag users, then the sum (tags - untags) would have to be 2 or more

I've noticed that the Off-Topic section has dozens and dozens of simplistic posts that makes me wonder if they are from one entity. Since they follow a sort of unnatural pattern that doesn't seem realistic, even for religious people. And that you don't see in the other sections.

They would say something basic that a hardcore religious person might say, "With god everything is possible, so long as you believe," followed by more simplistic comments from some one else that goes something like, "Yes, that's why we must respect our parents." "Losing your virginity before marriage is not good because we are honoring god and our future beloved one."

The thing is that normally in other places around the internet you would at least see people debating such things, but it just really seems as though this is one person having a conversation with themselves, with all those accounts following the pattern of the one fake persona.

These comments really look off and simplistic, and easy to detect. Perhaps it can be solved by deletion.

But at the same time how can a mod be sure, in a superficial sense it's difficult to delete a comment that goes "Yes, that's why we must respect our parents." Even if it seems like the person is just saying BS, following an MO. Such comments put one on the spot, because superficially they can be protested as a legit comment.

I was just reading this other post here and he too seemed to have expressed his concerns of hiring this gang of good ol boys to fight spam.
IMO, pharmacists CAN recognize a shit post but he is incredibly biased, comes off as a rude, bigotted and a racist person. If it were me I would not be giving so much power to someone who can't have some form of self-control in these issues.
But, then again, like I said. He's not stupid, his red tags do usually hit the right spot with spammers.

There needs to be an automated way, something, that I have suggested in that post theymos made. Something that automatically deals with the issue. For instance this Merit system that has just been implemented, this can be used to hire people that have higher merit vs those that have lower merit. This is like the thumbs up / like button. The more likes you get, the better.

Well, there is no reason he can't be a little more polite with negative coments I suppose. These days everyone is so sensitive...I mean it is the internet and you should expect the occasional name calling. So far there have been a couple solid suggestions to help fix the spam stuff so my additions seem to be helping! I am sure we as a community will find a fair way to fix this spam issue. I need to read up on this merit system... I hope it helps also.

It starts with name calling and then it gradually develops into a whole racial thing and makes the environment here a duller place. Yes, it IS the internet and that makes my point all the more important. Internet's not just for the western world, rich people, white people or the aristocrats, no need to belittle entire nations and paint everyone with the same crayon. IMO, it becomes all the more necessary that one should be wary of what they speak on an international forum. Bitcointalk is the forefront of Bitcoin and everything crypto.

And yes, I agree with you completely, low quality posts and spam does need to be curbed in one way or another. However, anything in this regard should not be taken lightly, the whole signature farming thing is it's own economy and employs people. I know some that do it full time even.
More so it generates traffic, brings in fresh blood to this community, which is why the advertisers pay in the first place. There just needs to be a quality check by the campaign managers.

My own idea as a suggestion. Don't mind if not helpful.

Scammers are always everywhere they cause a lot of trouble to investors, maybe tagging them with red flag is not effective as it is but banning there I.P. address can or maybe helpful to evict them in this forum. ( If it is proven that an accused person is a real scammer with reference). This is just only a suggestion.

Spammers are crying out loud in the "reputation section", some wants clarification why they are tagged, some wants to argue without watching their words and does not give respect to superiors. Some have points to consider, but I trust DT MEMBERS with their decision. This is a community not a market where we can just speak freely. So tagging is an effective way but giving time to evaluate is a good way to assess.
Everybody deserves a second chance, then if they do it again, banning account is good enough to neutralize spammers.


P.S. THIS IS JUST ONLY A SUGGESTION.
(Please do correct me if I have said unnecessary words.)

I have some idea to prevent spam:
Implement SMAS to all campaign managers and must be managed by the moderators if an user listed to SMAS moderators can disable the signature of that user preventing the user from joining signature campaigns only problem is can moderators disable signature remotely? I think this more humane than giving negative feedback

Edit: Although giving users a negative feedback helps a lot against spamming and shitposting, the problem is, the feedbacks is harsh and also, the user given a negative trust by the DT user posts in reputation section pleading to remove their negative feedback or attacking the DT who gave him/her a negative feedback making more spam in reputation and Meta sections

Enforcing SMAS as mandatory is something I've read a few times already in this and the other thread.
I've made an update post to that (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1545652.msg28858331#msg28858331).
Would like to hear theymos' opinion on the matter, though.

I love that you have seen my point. I had fears that my voice wouldn't be heard because I am not carrying a Legendary/Hero Badge or because I am tagged as "shitposter from 3rd World". But that is the use of this Open Forum to express what you want to say (excluding the spam of course) no matter what your rank is and not forgetting the rule of good "Netiquette".

If you want to have something like this work, you need to have a crystal clear, unambiguous set of guidelines for what should and should not be flagged across the board (those running sig campaigns or not). The people assigned to it need to be capable of removing their emotions from the job and apply the rules completely objectively. From the looks of it, this is not the case right now.

Having said that, these sorts of things rarely work out mostly because human beings have a hard time being objective and not inserting their own personal opinions into something like this. Especially as some relish the "power" they hold over others and start to abuse it.

Instead, the whole thing should be pushed back to those that are paying the "shit posters". They're the ones that should be policing the posts and not paying shit posters. Then your crew could review the posters of various campaigns and if they find the campaign is not policing the posts adequately, they lose their sig campaign privileges for some period of time. Just a thought off the top of my head.

Negative trust only does so much. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just like playing the devil's advocate on these issues.

See: Betcoin.ag (campaign and site)

People stuck with that signature campaign well after it was revealed to be a scam site with plenty of other shady activity.

Sorry Blazed I don't agree giving neg tagging for shit poster. Trust feedback was built for saving from scammer or possible scammer.

Just outsourcing someone to giving everyone neg tag, it's really bad idea. Neg tagging for multiple account user understandable what Lauda was doing but tagging for posting small posts not a good idea at all. We will never know are they biased or not when giving negative rating because they will just giving neg tag and post shit poster. Sometime small half line post is more accurate than posting full para. Are they reading full content before giving neg tagging or they check profile and check oh that user have all half to 2 line post so he is shit poster.

99% times I also like to post even half line or say 1-2 lines max because for my work as a trader since last 4 years not require big post and I don't like to post big because I know if I can answer easily to the point in half line than why post in full big para.


This is superb idea, I will love to work with improve list of SMAS list.

When I run campaign for btc signature campaign, I always very strict to choosing participant because there is so much option  but when it comes to only bounty tokens I am lenient but I made some strict rule like posting in 1-2 days won't earn stake so user must post minimum 3 days in a week to earn stake so I won't give multi account user to easy escape and they can't earn easily bounty tokens. But problem not all manager follow strict rules and because of that when ICO developer see there is low number of participants in their signature campaign because of strict rule and other campaign have very big number of users so they complained so much. And as a bounty manager I have to show them why they have huge number of signature participants and why we don't and they try to force me to easy rule for their signature campaign too.

I've always thought about it but I couldn't express it here, it is because of the second thought I had about the misunderstanding with others, mainly DT members.
But thank you for pointing out this to Blazed. I hope Theymos & Blazed will do something about it soon enough. If a solution comes up then recent quarrel may come to an end.


Husires's idea is not bad, but it will not reflect the level of spammer someone might be.
In my opinion, Lutpin's idea will be more effective. The same functionality of trust rating system, but with post score name.

It is for sure that we need a different system for spammers, instead of the trust rating system. I believe trust rating should only be used when there is a financial transaction.

Your two was  correct!Maybe we should separate for color for the tracing up of making an offenses.This is really hot issue now specially when they add another rule for the security of this forum which is the qualified post we made and give as a merit.This is truly why bitcointalk.org was really interesting because of how they stricted the rules to make the people descipline and continue our journey with this business.

A level system in spammers Merit is better in my honest opinion. If someone wants to correct themselves or someone who doesn't have any idea about the spam systems on this forum should get at least one chance to learn and change.

If someone continues to spam even after one "negative spammer merit" then those should not be allowed to join any campaigns.

Honestly I think you were (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2816647.msg28842655#msg28842655).


Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise.

Yeah, it is his forum so I will make sure the red for shit posting stops. I was not sure if it would work, but at least it got something else implemented for us. I remain doubtful that anything will fix the spam here until we hold campaign managers accountable for their users.

I doubt it too, at least in short term. We must find other ways to do that.
I hope theymos will write about my idea (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2816647.msg28843644#msg28843644).

It's clear the staff isn't enough to fight spam and a bigger group must be allowed to do that.

Looks like I was wrong to allow the negatives, but I do think it would have worked. We can only hope the new merit system will help with it.

The damage has been made and I am one of them.  Am I really spammer? I don't think so, every people has different estimation about post rating.

Back to the topic, why don't you give a tool for them (spamming fighters) to rate all the post here instead of giving red trust?  

Can you link to 3 posts of yours that deserve merit+? Seriously. I can only find posts that make no good to the forum. But I don't think you deserve negative trust, you're not a scammer.

Who you?
I hope those tools will be available soon to stop low-quality posters.

Disagreed. Just while it might not be the best solution to label both scammers and spammers under the same color, that's what the description of the rating is for. Given the situation, it was decent.

Here we go, another bad idea. Instead of tackling the problem at its roots, let's develop another complex system.

See, the good thing about it is that what you think doesn't matter. You can never completely objectively asses yourself, not that you have any assessment skills to begin with. Your posts are useless and do not deserve any Merit points.

Sorry I don't usual to rate my own post, beside that a post could be useful for newbie but shit for legendary. But I can tell you one advice that I had made in this link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2374807.msg24227168#msg24227168. My advice was worth $1000 because I got 780 R for 5 days.

You, I mean for Blazed because I think he is one of the most powerfull people here.

Sure, the description is important, and so is the reference. It's to explain why you think the user is a scammer or very untrustworthy.

Negative means:

We shouldn't use it for whatever else just because we explain so on the description.

Edit: The same way we shouldn't leave negative trust because someone edited a post of ours with a "FTFY", even if we explain so in the description of the rating
(Lauda will get this :P)

Strongly disagreed. We do need a solution, developing another system is an option. Another way would be to reach an agreement with signature managers. We can't just give up, can we?
And because we can't/shouldn't leave negative trust to spammers then we need new ideas.

---

It doesn't matter whom it's useful to, as long as it's well thought, well written, with valid arguments: constructive. Even if you disagree or you already knew the posted information.

It does say something about the quality of your posts when the very best one is:
How long did it take to research and write it?

Only theymos can make changes to the forum

That's just a leftover software artifact from the failing design of the system. It's a system of trust. Take a look at the negative ratings I gave the bcash folk spewing "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin". Are they scammers? Well ??? Those ratings (or type of ratings) were approved by theymos.

Oh, yes. >:(

Re latter part: How do you do that? What happens in 2 our of 30 reject the agreement? How to prevent new managers popping up that don't accept the agreement? How do you enforce this agreement? While the suggestion may seem simple, it is most certainly not.


I wouldn't put 'can't' there. We most certainly can, but apparently we shouldn't (better put, unfortunately we shouldn't).

Fair enough, if that's true then those ratings are valid.

Leaving negative trust to spammers is not approved by theymos.

Agreed. That's a big problem. That's why I think making "another complex system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2816647.msg28843644#msg28843644)" is a better solution.
But my point is that we need to think of new ideas. I had 2, maybe they're not the solution, but we do need to do something.

Agreed again. We can but we should not.

I am not an admin and can not add any such tools (that was why I tried fighting it via the Default Trust system). It looks like Theymos had a possible solution up his sleeve anyways with the merit system. I really hope merits help fix the issues moving forward.

To my understanding the trust system is in place to prevent people from being scammed when making trades. If it is then used to mark spammers also then we are effectively sentencing them to be unable to trade or to trade at a disadvantage because their post quality isn't up to scratch. Some may argue that is fair and they should lose their rights to trade in the forum if they do not respect it by not spamming. Personally I don't think it's really something that is fair, at least without proper forewarning that it can be the case.

One thing that is quite clear from the discussion is that proper guidelines need to be in place under any future system as to what constitutes spam. I'm of the belief that it won't be possible to make decisions on spam entirely objective so would suggest something along the lines of guidelines for what definitely constitutes spam and then anything else is down to the judgement of the trusted few.

Simple first guidelines could be things such as:
any post that is under x characters/words
any post that is incoherent or even in the wrong language


I can't think of much more immediately right now but I'm sure if everyone puts their brain power together a short list of things that are 100% spam or close enough can be agreed upon. This list can then work as a starting point, it can be written up for new members to read so that they are aware of it and then it can be used as a basis to at least remove a level of the spam. The more complex spam is going to need dedicated people and the right people to ensure it's tackled effectively and fairly.
                                  

Length should not really be a factor imo. Sometimes a simple 3-5 word response is all that is needed. The issue here is that you can not just make a set rule of what is spam and what is not...everything is subjective. Say someone asks a question and they get 20 answers from 20 people that all basically say the same thing. Obviously people are replying for the posts even if they are all worded well...

No.
red trust does not mean the end of life, but you can not enter Signature Campaign which is the main goal of creating this accounts.
80% of this account stop/reduce posting after getting red trust. What does this mean? ;)

actmyname (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=465017) and The Pharmacist (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=487418) start giving more wise feedback last days.

We can not equate them with scammers, but that is the only weapon until now.

They only cared about red because it prevents them from joining campaigns. All the spammers only post here for the pay they do not care about the forum just the coins they earn... I bet there are a few people who own hundreds and hundreds of accounts and profit very well.

Length within reason should not be a factor but I think it would be safe to say for starters that any post that is 1 word only is definitely spam. The case you described isn't really something that can ever be covered by any set rules and that's where you would need people to be able to make judgement calls.

But if you could get to the stage where you had something that said along the lines of 'the following can and will be considered as spam, however this does not mean that anything that passes these guidelines can also not be considered as spam'. It's at least a starting point for the community to have some clarity as to what is expected or what can be punished.

I wonder if there is somebody stupid enough to take that bet on  ;)
Of course they care about the red trust only because it prevents them for earning money, maybe except for this guy....


The merit system is one way of preventing spammers and is not infallible. Some will get through, and we need something to stop the ones that do and the ones that are already "safe" since they achieved higher ranks before this.

I agree that the red tag was not designed for that,  it was something like a drug of last resort that might have some unfortunate consequences and of course EcuaMobi idea sounds pretty good but it has one big flaw, it needs to be enforced on the forum.
Till then....what????

I made this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2797897.msg28847553#msg28847553) one-word post just two days ago. Now tell me: is this spam? Or is this an informative answer reasuring someone on something that I had just explained right before his question?
In case your wondering: my signature doesn't pay for posts under 100 characters (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935179.0). If I would extend my one-word post to more than 100 characters, then it would indeed become spam.

You guys are totaly out of control and total noobs.
You have no experience with big message boards and spam fighting at all.
What you are doing is destroying and killing a whole messageboard.
Best example is the marketing forum blackhatworld where mods have high noses like you and won't let questioning their decissions.They made some subforums basicly only useable for members with a certain rank to "protect" their members from scammers.
The result is that these subforums are basicly all dead after 3 months because a forum lives from the varity of diffrent users.

You are also pathetic claiming to fight scammers and spammers for the good of the board but are abusing the merit system already yourself giving merit point in your own group circle for shit posts or even single words like "butthead".Giving 50 merit for a post like "butthead" like Lauda did seems to me the best example of your high quality and your pseudo leadership
You have some people here which are the biggest spammers and scammers.Lauda and his group abused and destroyed so many legit accounts its just shocking but the most shocking part is they give a shit about destroying legit accounts.
Most of them even bought themself back in the days accounts as colleteral when lending coins so maybe we should also give them a scammer status.

I'm also shocked since the BCT guideline says clearly selling accounts is allowed and i even asked a mod before trying to buy one for a friend to be able to post pictures on his service thread.
And now i got abused and being called a scammer for following BCT guideline and a Mod's reply.

You are fucking nuts.
I can show you at least 200 people who got wrongly abused who already sent me PM's and everything.

You want to fight spam by destroying legal accounts and giving a fuck about it ?Maybe start with your own main accounts and feel how it is to be abused with false claims.

You know when reading the guideline i was really fascinated how professional it was cause it was layed out so nobody could get abused by such a small snop group like you are


Talking exectly about your abuse


Guideline is clearly saying selling accounts is allowed.So if somebody register and tries to buy an account when reading that guideline you instantly tag him as scammer.
Where did you even fucking posted that buying accounts its prohabited ?There is no fucking sticky at all.
And most important i think the rule of a global moderator is higher than some decissions of some punks who declared themself to fight against spam.

If spammers wanted they could destroy this board so quickly you wouldn't even be able to do anything about it.
They could use Xrumer to flood your board or create a bot with 50 accounts and start abusing the trust rating for each and every account.The possibilities are endless and you think
you will come and handle that by playing sheriff ?
You wanna know what is going to happen ?Smart people will stop posting because of getting tired of you punks always to fear to get a negativ rating since everyone clearly sees how often you abuse it.
It already happened on many messageboards where whole senior communities stopped posting because of punks like you who try to control everything.

The forum main idea was decentralisation of power.What you do is a clearly centralisation of power and even trying to force project managers and ITO's to accept your rules or to be defamed (which is the biggest NO GO i ever read)
I agree the spam needs to be limited but there are other more effectiv ways and most important with your pathetic behavior against community members expecially Lauda abusing massivly the trust system and who proofed many times saying he won't talk to the average guy made you become the problem #1 on this board and not the spam or even scammers.
The trust feedback have been already been abused by you guys so massivly that the admin had to create a new solution after receiving massiv complains since YOU ARE CURRENTLY THE MAIN CANCER ON THIS BOARD with your massiv abuse and not spammers

You are fucking control freaks on a board which tried to be decentralised as much as possible.
Crypto is going Mainstream 2018-19 you want to ban all the noobs which will join this board over the next 2 years or tag them as scammers and spammers?

@blazed you are responsible for the massiv abuse Lauda did with his group and it should be you who should degrate these nuts people who clearly have no understanding of decentralisation but just for self benefit.
You are bassicly responsible that hundreds of legit accounts got destroyed.

Something what the community always tried to prevent at all cost that no innocent member gets ever harmed even if it means having spammers and scammers on board.

@blazed

What did you do to the ones which were not guitly ?
I bet nothing

You totaly lost the main idea of this messageboard on which grounds it was build
And your avatar is a joke based on your acting

No comment blazed on your disgusting action ?

blazed everyone is waiting for you action.You try to sit it out ?

You created garbage you will be treated like garbage

Lets talk about your disgusting actions, for a second.
Your trust page reads like a satire account (and I'm talking about the sent ones, not the received ones).
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=355462

Some of the greatest hits of feedbacks you've given:

"Lutpin and Lauda Gang" ~ negative trust to The Pharmacist.
"I don't like him." ~ negative trust to akamit.
"for giving merit in this way" ~ negative trust to klaaas.

Maybe you should start with improving your own standards.

Just FORBID signatures. Just it. Spam will be cutted off by 90%
So easy.

Why should i improve my own standards ?
I just lowered my standards to your and Lauda's level .
Why are you so pissed about it ?
When people got pissed about Lauda's behavior you had no issue even defended Lauda.
So go talk first with Lauda and her gang before you wanna talk with me

They would never allow it since their most income comes from ACE .
So Signatures are making them money and thats the reason they like to dominate everything there and try to dictact their own rules to ITO's to increase their profits.
Of course no conflict of interrest since they make everything just based on own benefit

Can I suggest another way of pointing out the spammers?
Just add the number of the reported and deleted posts of the user, set a level for a certain amount of deleted posts and you have a working system with minimal effort of implementation. It will increase the work of the moderators for sure, but will keep the forum cleaner.

ofc, I know that... I just answered to the topic question: "Solutions for the spam problem?"
No signatures = No run to ranks = No spam

Time to revive this. @EcuaMobi && @ibminer:
Do you find it appropriate to leave feedback in the form of neutral trust for spammers (e.g. "Shitposter.", "Spammer."). There are very different views regarding the trust system. Some feel like feedback is okay to give in almost all cases, while others do not. I'm just curious as to what you two think and whether we could/should be doing it[1].

---

[1] I already did it for a few obvious cases, thus wondering if I should continue or remove those.

Don't agree. Smart spammers never let their posts being deleted. So your proposal is not good, might not solve the spamming waves in the forum.
I dont know how to fight them more efficiently than merit system, which actually good tool for this purpose.
My recommendation is high qualities posts will usually have more words than shit posts. Hence, how about minimum words per post?

I haven't changed my opinion: I think negative trust should be given to scammers or untrustworthy users, including spammers who try to defraud signature managers or others with their posts, but not because of the fact they spam but because they try to defraud. I know that may be subjective.

Neutral feedback can be used for comments, such as "Spammer" or other useful information unrelated to trustworthiness. I don't see any issues about using neutral trust for this.

Spammer should be controlled by others means: reporting & banning, merit (I hope it does help) or other ideas (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2816647.msg28843644#msg28843644).

I didn't expect you to, especially not this quickly. I wasn't talking about that though/I wasn't giving out negative ratings based on that recently either. I did it for a bit in late 2017, but quickly withdrew those.

Alright, so we do agree that neutral feedback is appropriate in labeling someone as such. How would you handle a retaliatory negative rating that is completely false, other than ignoring it?

The 1st isn't and hasn't been working for a long time due to several reasons. The 2nd will take some time before we can evaluate its effect. The 3rd, unfortunately, may never see a comment from theymos let alone get implemented.

---

@ibminer?

I would just ignore it most of the cases. I'd consider some blatant lies (falsely accusing us as scammers, for example) as untrustworthy, and therefore could deserve negative trust.

Yes, unfortunately. I was hoping he posts about that. I may insist after a while when Meta isn't full of threads about Merit.

I agree with your opinion ,,
So,sure for the newbie still have to learn again for spam problems ,,
(Better be warned first, so that the beginner can learn his mistakes, and the future can be better than before)

This is what i thought about something that can improve the trust system.

https://i.imgur.com/grwNZHv.jpg

I got the idea from movie “world war z” where there is a board of people in a country who think there will be no zombie apocalypse and there is one person assigned to think otherwise and they ended up making a wall to isolate the country. So, i guess it is a good thing if some dt want to leave a tag to someone, there must be a counter from other dt who think otherwise, because dt member job is not just giving negative trust, but also a positive trust, so in a case, we need two different perspective. The bad thing for this idea is, there will be a lot of work to decide some cases.
I got the idea with spammer tagged as orange and scammer tagged as red from this thread, and for spammer, i guess it is good to add a time penalty, and after the penalty is over and they still spam, the penalty time will be lnger for him.
And i suggest the green dt member and the process of decision making is in a secret time and place, like in a PM not on a new thread or something public.

Blazed wasn't the one who removed him. It was Tomatocage and OgNasty. Those two excluded The Pharmacist from their trust lists thus resulting The Pharmacist to be removed from DT.  :'(

Oh so something changed.......Funny wasn't it him claiming that nothing will ever change ?