Bitcoin Forum

Now before people show up with their pitchforks calling for a forum wide Ban, or rotten tomatoes because they lost their job this week. I would like to request Temp Sig Bans for anyone on the Banned list.
List of banned participants in the Cryptotalk Campaign (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5188200.0)

Nothing crazy, or go crazy what do I care. This will help in clearing a lot of Sig spam from the forum for one. - The rest of the benefits really are for anyone trying to identify current spammers, or assist in monitoring this campaign. By imposing a Sig ban on these members peolpe will no longer have to double check over and over if they are on the list. It won't interfere with anyone not spamming the forum strictly for the money. Thoughts?

I think that's a great idea. At least the posters themselves will have an idea of what happened if they are spamming/burst posting/etc.

As I read the topic a while ago, a lot has been added to the lists, so it should be continuously checked. Temp sig bans would be enough for the spam posters, but those who woke up and changed passwords would be in a different case, IMO.

Well I do recall some of the cryptios team had been preemptively locking suspicious activity accounts. Iirc at least 1 legitimate account owner got caught up in it due to password and email changes.. Can't recall will have to look it up. I'm just thinking there are options available, that still seem to be within the forums general way of doing things.
Edit: Here's what I was thinking about. I would still expect research and investigation before just a blind action in this matter.

I'm not sure if everyone on the list deserves a sig ban, but I for sure would like to see EVERY single user who has been banned for Spam/Burstposting receive a ban. I don't mean a sig ban either, I mean ban from the forum for a minimum 30 days. Then impose a 6 month-1 year sig ban as well.

Those particular users showed 0 respect for Bitcointalk or the rules of the forum. They chased the dollar. Just my thoughts, theymos and the staff are going to do what they feel is best.

Well, here we go. I have been advocating for some attention to be given to the signature section of the forum by the adminstrators. Using this users as scapegoat would set a perfect example to other, as this will send a clear message to signature spammers. I second the suggestion.

In my opinion, temporary signature ban between 6-24 months would do just the trick, they're always welcome to participate on the forum, if they can amend their ways.

I was only thinking something like a week, a bit of a tap to rethink their motivation here. While showing how easily you can piss away the opportunity. I imagine for a Ban to take place it would come aftr users go back and report all posts they report to you. I've left mine until you added users to the list.

I'm not looking for any overhaul to the current on forum Signature Camapaign dynamic. I think it operates fairly well. This is different, anyone Sr. Member and above gets in. It's only after Yahoo bans them do they lose their pay, and there are a lot of people joining. I'm also not looking to scapegoat anyone, this is targeted only at users violating forum poilicies/guidelines.

I don't expect all of them to be banned, but it would be nice if a Mod can at least review all listed accounts.
I've made long lists (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2746043.msg28502785#msg28502785) of abusers in the past, but those were mainly low-ranking accounts that could be Nuked by most Mods.

I dont't think it is a good idea.
By sig-banning them, you deprive them from their right to join another campaign or to promote their own business just because they were removed from the Yobit campaign which is based ,only, on yahoo's judgement (with all due respect to yahoo).

Well I believe there will be a decent amount of space taken up on the modlog that will back up Yahoo's opinion. I do hope everyone is reporting posts after notifying Yahoo, so that we are also clearing the boards as well. If you are getting removed from a campaign for Sig-spamming/burst posting solely for profit, you don't deserve the privilege not right.

I agree with yahoo, many of these accounts seem to be farmed, bought or hacked accounts, so they should be banned for several weeks at least to drain the swamp...

Their offenses are declared openly therefore anyone can review this to confirm they deserve to be blacklisted. They were causing a nuisance by spamming the forum. Only those accused of spamming on the list would be affected by the way. The other offenses like, not wearing right signature and personal text or not been eligible for the campaign aren't punishable by the adminstrators.

Consider the list to be a recommendation from @Yahoo just as when you report a post and the moderators take action. He's the manager and have complied a list of those he felt are abusing the privilege now it's left for the offenders to be review and punished based on the suggestion by the OP. Those in question here are just the spammers.

Yes I agree that most of the users are based on my opinion, but you are free to look up everyone on that list and see if you form a different opinion. My guess is you would agree with most of them.

In fact I agree with most of them and deep inside I wish they all get a perma-ban.
My point here is that not all their offenses deserve the same sentence.

If mods are going to take action against them, then it should be on a case by case basis.
You already made it easier for mods by adding the reason behind the ban  :)

Yes its better if they provide a punishment depending on the case that the offender did.

We know that everyone of us isnt perfect to abide the forum rules, But if the offense is so hard like post bursting, In my jurisdiction they should recieve a signature ban and a redtrust. On plagiarism case , It should be obvious that they should recieve permanent ban in this forum. Another situation is off topic or wrong grammar statements, I believe that they should get a warning strikes before banning on something.

You don't leave trust feedbacks based on posting habit, feedbacks are for trust related issue like scams etc. On the issue of wrong gramma, not everyone on the forum has english as their official or first language and since the forum doesn't host all local board for them to communicate in, you can't be too hard on them for trying to communicate with a language that isn't theirs as there will always be room for mistakes.

Although when this mistakes are repeatedly too obvious that it totally changes the meaning of the information they were trying to pass across, turning it into a spam then giving them a time out to go work on their english isn't such a bad idea.

Temporary signature bans are somewhat a bit of a light punishment for people abusing campaigns and chasing profits rather than contribute to the quality of discussions found within this forum. What I suggest is we retain the 30-day ban for spammers and if they repeat the same kind of half-assed effort they were doing in order to get paid from campaigns, impose a permanent ban on their accounts. This is a no-brainer, considering the fact that a lot of people in here are trying their best efforts to report spammy posts and users in order to keep the forum clean and free from eyesore posts made by users who are just in it for the pay, not the discussion and the very essence of a forum.

Temp ban or not, and how long temp ban lasts will depend on which rules of the forum they don't obey, and how severe of rule disobeyment they did.
Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0)
There are lots of rules which spam-/ shit-posters don't obey, such as burst posting.

Burst posting happens with many campaigns that are not managed by good managers. If participants of other campaigns don't get temp ban for burst posting (I think some of them are temporarily banned, but not all of them), and their corresponding bans depend on their speed of burst posting and how many burst-posts they did.

Days ago, I saw someone complained about 30-day temp-ban as consequence of spam PMs (Sorry BitcoinFX, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5186601.0)). That temp-ban period is very different between cases, depend on themselves and moderators who are responsible for those cases.
Hhampuz, months ago, was only temporarily ban for 7-days.
There are likely some special solutions, what we already saw months ago with Yobit campaign, when theymos made temp-bans on Yobit-supporters who were reported from their bad posts. Not sure what will happen this time with Crypto Talk.

It depends on the moderator or admin handling that report,I saw somewhere that one global mod has the habit of issuing 10,20 and 30 days ban instead of common 7,14 and 30 days temp ban.They also have power to change ban if they feel it was in appropriate.

So this is the second time if there will be a ban for them so it will be most likely more longer than the first one for yobit related signature.

Where did you see it was the same members as the previous campaign?
Most of the participants of the previous campaign have been tagged by IconFirm/blurryeyed, and I'm sorry but I don't see any trust feed back from IconFirm/blurryeyed on the profile of the current participants. In fact, I think there is really much more people this time.

I don't get what you are talking about.

I mentioned about their signature got banned by admin earlier which happened few months earlier. ::)

No that would be open to extreme criticism, you would need a strict set of criteria for this and evidence that each person has been matched against it equally for banning them or giving them a sig ban. This would all need to be transparent and also it would be essential ALL participants were measured equally against such criteria. This is how it should work for campaign managers anyway, the fact they can defer responsibility to the gamed metrics that DT control to ensure they themselves are the most eligible is LAUGHABLE and disgraceful. May explain why all DT members are spamming away chipmixer and other highly paid sigs LOL

I certainly would also take into account here that EVERY post here on this thread here is made by people that are intent of milking the board for the maximum they can. You can hardly miss the FACT most people here are financially motivated posters and would not be posting as much if they were not doing it "for the money"  hence a conflict of interests instantly arises.

Strict clear and transparent criteria for all members or forget the sig banning.

Ban all sigs for members and see who we have left after a couple of years.

Spam vs negative value specious arguments and statements = spam is less harmful really.

A signature ban and a real ban are practically the same thing for many of these members, who are only posting to get paid.  So I would certainly have no objections to not allowing them to use their sig space for advertising, at least for a while.  Then maybe they'll get the message (if they didn't already with your campaign ban) that they need to seriously improve. 

Not a bad idea either.  Theymos shocked me when he did that with the Yobit participants last time, but I thought it was reasonable.  A lot of those folks had flooded the forum with more garbage than usual and I think they deserved what they got--and the punishment IMO was fair and not overly harsh.  Not all of the participants are shitposters, so going by the ones that were banned from Yahoo62278's campaign would be a good guideline on who ought to be held accountable.

LoyceV has a post or thread on users who get temp bans actively posting again after their bans finished (as I remembered). I think LoyceV has data on this, and things will become clearer if he can provide how many percent of old participants of past rounds of Yobit campaign join CryptoTalk.
From such data, I mean that temp bans don't play huge role on control spammers. They will abandon their accounts during ban period, or leave accounts in hypernation phase, but when something pay high, they will actively come back and make spam posts.
It shocked me too, but honestly I felt it is unfair somehow. Spam is spam, burst post is burspost no matter which campaigns users join and wear signatures when they spam or burst post. There are lots of spammers or burst posters who don't wear Yobit signature have not been temp banned.
It seems Yobit mades noise and people focused too much on them and their supporters months ago. Punishments are likely harsher for Yobit participants, but anyway it is the forum managed by theymos (and some others), so they have rights to do anything they want to keep it clean.

And I tell you that most of the participants of the current campaign didn't get banned before, because it's not the same people -or at least accounts- as the previous campaign.

The number of people thinking I'm suchmoon is increasing :P He/she/plaguebot may have the same avatar and signature, it's still not me :D
You're looking for Effect of signature bans (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5187016.0). By suchmoon :P

AFAIK,if an account got removed by the yobit bot then it is not possible to enroll into their panel forever.

Surely there will be lot of good participants in yobit as well but you have to see what is happening by reading this Need Negative rating members for Signature Campaign (0.0024 BTC) per day!! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5189325.0).

People uses this an opportunity to make few buck before yahoo find out that spammer and scammer.

You should take into account that the enrollment is automatic here, so it's not normal members who are participating, but mainly people who don't care about bitcointalk, they just want the bounty of the campaign.

I wouldn't count on it: Look at suchmoon's thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5188149.0): Out of the first 150 usernames, only 36 have more than 10 earned Merit, and only 11 have more than 50 Merit.
Although Merit alone doesn't provide conclusive evidence on individual post quality, I think it's pretty clear only a few (maybe 10%, probably less) of the participants have good posts. If the rest is eliminated just like they would have been eliminated in any other Bitcoin paying signature campaign, Yobit can actually end up with some good quality users.

I dont like all paid sigs. but dont ban user just because one camp.-manager kicked them out. too much power in the hands of the camp-manager.

I am really impressed by the numbers and stats shared by you and few other users on this forum. Just curious to know how you extract all this data ? Do u have some sort of scripts which automatically extract this data. If possible, you can start a new thread where you teach us how all this is done.  :)

Last update of Suchmoon's was in 29th sep,now three days passed so atleast the figure of total participants were doubled by now (just my guess).

From that we may atleast filter 30-50 participants (just my guess as well). :D

---

I read something of cryptotalk now they also having rewards for posting on their website and 1 btc rewards for a person who make more number of post until end of this month.So this time also they were here to make short term buzz about cryptotalk.

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/09/02/muvIb.png

Although, the list does make it easier for us to see who's been identified to be spamming by the community that doesn't mean everyone on that list deserves a signature ban like Yahoo states. Every campaign is going to have different criteria, and some campaigns could potentially have stricter guidelines than the actual forum.

There's really nothing wrong with paid signatures, it's just like doing what one ordinarily does daily,  that's logging into the forum and 'discussing' with other users either about bitcoin, the forum, altcoins etc, but earning a little BTC in the process.But the problem is with some users, such as majority of them on that blacklist, who forgot the actual reason why such privilege was put in the first place, which is not to hinder the discussions, nor make them look 'stupid' due to the intent with which they now post, just to earn and not to corroborate the ideas of others in the discussion.

Yahoo's list may not be the most comprehensive, neither is he expecting other campaigns to simply buy into it, it just makes things easier and leaves us with the ease of looking into such users and making our own judgement.

No need to sig ban those banned yobit participants, most of them will go back to hibernation once they found out they are banned from the campaign...

The effect of temp sig ban and temp ban has no difference, except if sig ban would be longer...

Instead of sig bans I would suggest to flip this around and require a small amount of earned merit (e.g. 2 merits in last 12 months) to display a signature, in addition to any existing rank requirements. This would take care of dormant farmed accounts (well, the crappiest of them anyway) and would leave enough room for campaigns to improvise with posting limits and other rules.

Yes, I know this has been suggested probably a million times before and is unlikely to happen. I can still dream though.

You had participated in a campaign which has hired yahoo62278 as quality checker. He checks the quality of posts and has the right to decide based on his own criteria. This is same as any other campaign in the forum which the manager has the right to remove any participant. In cryptotalk campaign, Yahoo62278 is not the manager, but he has the right to remove everyone as Yobit has asked him.
 
Here is Burst-posting definition by Yahoo62278

This is not a randomly ban on participants. A ban, if there is, comes from bad posts of participant and from strictly management of manager to check post quality, time between posts. Randomly bans mean outstanding posters can be banned randomly and arbitrarily. It does not make sense and not what the campaign under yahoo's management will go forward.

The previous campaign of Yobit went like this. Bad posters who wear Yobit signature and made spam, low quality, off-topic posts, then were reported by community, would consequently temporarily banned with disabled signature, too. Only made bad posts and reported, if not they were fine (without bans).

Self-spam, then indirectly self-ban.  :)

I doubt a formal sig ban is actually necessary. Most of these posters are so staggeringly hopeless they'll never get into any conventionally run campaign that has properly considered applications.

I would be looking into booting any campaign that had automated sign ups but I can see why that might be further than the folks running the forum want to go. All the same that's what breeds the drippiest shit.

Maybe the Albert Einstein quote will motivate you and inspire you to keep on trying the good thing.

I used that list as it was a running tally, of people currently banned from the campaign and many were still wearing the signature. Considering at the time I fell down a rabbit hole as one of the weak unhealthy ones wandered into a thread I was a part of. I then followed the grouped trail. While compiling proof and evidence before making wild accusations would find it to be wasted effort for a few. Obviously I don't expect the Admins to just take anybody's word for it.. sorry but we do still have to trust them... they can review the list against the reports submitted. There weren't many but all the posts I reported came back good.

We do know that good reports against users for spam, plagiarism, should count as proof they are violating the guidelines/rules everyone can see and should follow.

What milk are you looking for? I get it you don't like a lot of people but, that is a very broad stroke, which only detracts from your point. Stop using a paint roller when a brush will do.

Personally I felt a Ban would be harsh. A sig ban to most of these users is like a fine. Worse yet like being suspended from work. I'm not on the frontlines managing these folks, so I can only imagine what Yahoo sees in a week especially now. So I understand why he may want to up the anti, I just like to see progressive steps. Like losing your monetization but having the ability to participate. Not everyone will, but  a full on Ban can detract the few that might.  I have no idea what information about this campaign and it's total participants is out there, but I'm thinking this is one of the largest Campaigns ever run on the forum, by number of users.

It was just a thought. Seeing as nothing has happened in regards to this. The problem must not be anywhere near as bad as it seems.

do we really need the forum to ban these users?
they are already being kicked out of any campaign with a manager that looks at their post history since most of them are obvious low quality posters. so practically they are banned without the forum intervention.
the only problem would be when there is a low quality campaign itself where the manager is some ICO scammer who doesn't care or one with automated payments in which case the campaign itself should be banned, like what theymos did with yobit a while ago.
in other words the problem should be solved at the source, it would be easier and requires less work.

Banning them would be a little bit too harsh IMO, but reviewing each of those posters for a signature ban would be completely fair.
I think it's a great punishment for low-quality posters, it immediately hits them where it hurts.

Btw, I'm talking about a temporary sig ban, like mentioned in the OP, 30 days should do the trick.
They'll either give up or change their ways, in any case it sends a really strong message to would-be-spammers.

It is easy to check post quality if one campaign has only 25 or 50 slots in total, but if that campaign opens for 300 slots like Cryptotalk (that figure gave days ago) and will keep rising over days, I think it requires decent time, efforts, and good skills from manager to check, ban bad posters and clean the forum by stopping shitposters earning money from their boring nonsense posts.
Temp signature ban is just short-term solution, and they will come back with Cryptotalk or other campaigns when their signature temporary bans expired.

Generally I don't agree with signature ban of every one banned from Cryptotalk campaign. But I think temporary signature ban can be effective. When a user is temporary banned, at least he is warned about the quality of his posts and he can be permanently banned, if the behavior doesn't change.  

It would be a good thing if yahoo could give recommendations to staff. He's already reviewing these people and it should be easy for him to evaluate them. The biggest shitposters should be sent to an administrator for a review and if he confirms he should get a 7 day ban.

This would be a fair warning because you have to agree that cryptotalk has the worst of the worst among its members.

Did you notice how fast the list of banned users is growing? It's amazing.

I completely agree with this. A user who posts so badly is needed to have some rehabilitation and letting the user realize what he did, Giving chance ain't bad right?

Even moderators/staff are giving chance to the members who did something wrong or by not abiding the rules here in this forum.

The level of offenses is actually fair for me, The years of hard work that the user gave to his/her accounts can be justifiable.
I didn't experience being temporary ban myself here in this forum but I know the level of offenses is quite fair if I were the one who is in the position.