Bitcoin Forum

Me and some DT have tagged most of the participants of the 1xbit signature campaign because the site is proven to be one of the scam sites that is still actively renting forum user signature space to promote its site. The problem is, each participant never cares about the negative tags they get because they only care about the payouts at the end of each week.

If negative tags don't solve the problem of people continuing to promote this campaign, is it possible to expect a signature ban for each participant? Is this signature ban also a moderation of scam?

As we know that scam isn't moderated here; "NO" is the answer. Are they creating spam on the forum? If they are creating massive spam, then theymos would consider that but for simply for promoting a scam wouldn’t warrant a ban. Therefore. "NO".

Well said..

If they moderate one scam then users will expect them to moderate all scams and then there you are on the slippery slope of holding them accountable for scams they didn’t moderate..

Banning them because they are promoting "known" scam isn't reasonable, you should do to others too if it then.
Reporting their posts until they were ban due to spamming is the most effective way to handle this but that will take time.

OP, while your intentions are most probably good, the correct approach is in RapTarX answer.
Let's keep the same rules for everybody, no matter how annoying or how big scammers they are.


Negative feedback and flags are the tools for this. People have to learn to read and understand those.

Everyone should be aware of what kind of trust feedback users have even if it's not 100% effective at preventing someone from promoting fraud. It's clear that disallowing campaign participant from using signatures is part of "regardless of what campaign they promote" fraud moderation so it's very likely that admin will never approve it. Rather than asking admin to ban them from using signature then it's good to report every post of this user for deletion especially if it's spam it's much more appropriate than asking admin to moderate scams like 1xbit campaign.

After that, you can still ask each manager to blacklist them if necessary as this is the most effective way to not let them promote other campaigns after 1xbit campaign.

Regardless of the fact that the scam is not moderated on the forum and that the participants in this signature campaign may not generate too much spam - I will not lie to myself and say that I think it is right that the forum as a forum (administration) does nothing about it - and it has a very simple method to save a lot of people from the direct financial damage caused by the fact that this scam has been promoted on the forum for months.

Negative feedback and flags have no or minimal effect anyway, people don't understand or know what it means - the fact that the company pays forum members all the time to advertise it tells us that the campaign results bring results that far outweigh the costs.

Yes. I have reported probably close to a thousand 1xbit posts over the last week and most of them have been deleted but as far as I can tell not a single user has been banned even though vast majority of their posts are utter meaningless drivel. There are users creating posts in 1-2 minute intervals, likely sockpuppet farms because these posts come in bursts at certain times of day. Signature ban? No. Just ban. Not holding my breath though.


There is no slippery slope or some other fallacious reason for these users to exist here. This is not about scamming or other misguided notions that we can't possibly clean this forum up. They're useless shitposters.

And BTW the whole "scams are not moderated" copout makes no sense when (a) we expect users to wade through the rivers of shit flowing here and figure out what's what on their own - ok, fair enough, bitcoiners are supposed to be smart LOL, but at the same time (b) we think that the same users are dumb enough to think that if SOME scammers are banned etc then the forum is responsible for ALL scams. Pick a lane, are we smart enough or not.

But I digress. This is just spam, regardless of what shitty casino they're promoting.

If that's the case, I guess a massive ban would the solution if they are generating a lot of spam. That has happened back in the day with Yobit siganture campaign if I'm correct.
There are many argument/counter argument whether they should be banned or forum should stand in the same way as always but I would be supporting anything for the good cause of the forum users. Forum can't expect everyone to be smart..

If that's the case, it would be nice the mods also step in and confirm.
If this is the case then indeed ban is in order.

You can't expect them to be banned unless they are spamming which violates the forum rules and also they are not having 100 posts a week or criteria which encourages to create spam posts by reaching the required post quota to get paid. As of now you report their posts if against the rules and its the responsibility of every individual to choose the casinos with good reputation.

The rules of the forum should not be altered only because a certain scam gambling site is running a signature campaign and promoting scam.
But we can play our part by reporting the posts made by the spammers in that campaign. Since most of the posters in that campaign are not well known for their writing skills, their posts most likely will get deleted if reported by one or more members of the forum. Once the posts the deleted, the participants won't be paid and hence, people will be discouraged to join this campaign.

I believe it's a classic reasons when forum/ admin really don't moderate scams including participants promoting scams like the campaign the OP mentioned. Not many people care about the report to moderator button when they find that campaign participant posting spam on this forum, but there are only a few people like suchmoon who actually do it by the thousands.

Temporary ban, signature ban, and permanent ban have different cases. The scam is not moderated, and that's why I didn't choose "YES". IMO, most of the ban are made because the user violates the forum rules due to the continuous spam that gets his posts deleted too much and and most of the others due to plagiarism and evasion ban. Since you have declared yourself a spam solver on several occasions, then continue your good work of warning those users and maybe some of them will be banned for spam as well.

I don't mind about the campaign, but the shitposters as suchmoon has rightly pointed out. It's not a coincidence that every one of their promoters has bad intentions and spreads tons of nonsense. I get that the overwhelming majority wants to complete their post quota, but they do it moderately.

Lots have come here to get an extra income, but they absorb information at the same time. They're enhancing their knowledge and in sequence, help others. But, these 1xbit folks' contribution is 0. Or maybe, < 0 as they're disturbing.

I agree with the ban due to the above. Also, when it comes to this casino, I haven't heard the best (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5343377.0).

As much as I hate 1xbit, I don't agree with your proposal. If scams aren't moderated here, why we should ban 1xbit? It would be double standarts and people would start asking why other scams aren't banned.
But it's good point about spamming. I rarely can see good posts made by 1xbit participants. Maybe it's not worst kind of spamming, but they don't contribute much here. Though, I'm not sure that their content is bad enough to ban signatures

Banning the 1xbit team is not a good way to handle this and for sure many users here in the forum will know that this casino had much bad feedback from their clients and it's up to the user who wants to join their signature campaign and still promote this scam sites. But as I observe  I know/ assure that not all the participants are shitposter there are some participants that a quality poster too. And the best thing we do if we found a shit post we will report to the moderators so that they can take an action.

I know that the forum don't moderate scams, but obviously 99% of the participant in the 1xbit campaign are spammers and shitposters. Most are ^{[probably alt]} but I won't accuse it when I don't get solid evidence. Reporting their entire post may be the only way to get this user banned. But we can't do that all the time and we don't live just to report the actions of spammers from their sockpuppets. Do it together, it's much better.

---

I don't blame forum moderation for not handling scams, that's what I knew from the start. But when this becomes poison, then the signature ban for their deeds becomes thinkable. Yes it is because of spam and poor quality of posts regardless of how good or bad the site they are promoting is.

---

No, I shouldn't have done that because every manager is responsible for selecting and providing opportunities to participant. Some managers don't mind a bad account reputation while they will just be accepted and paid like most other reputable accounts.

---

No, I'm just asking if the ban on displaying signature for every 1xbit participant is a moderation scam, meaning I'm not asking the forum to ban 1xbit casino from being on the forum but does it make sense to let it continue its promotion and trap more users? It may be completely different.

Yes, so far reporting spamming is the only way out if banning the display of signature for each participant is also a moderation of scam. Of course letting this case happen blatantly without getting action from the forum is not fun at all. Negative tags and flags are almost useless to them.

The warning is very clear written on the manager's and participants profile, only blind and deaf people don't think the 1xbit site is a scam, the rest they know 1xbit is a scam site.

If you visit here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0, you will get 379 pages of all cases about fraudulent web/sites, meaning: 379x20=7,580 cases that should be eliminated in this forum, including 1xbit site, is it possible, I don't think so.

For 1xbit campaign participants, ban them no, it's impossible, they don't violate any forum rules, even if there are 1-2 participants, it is already established in the case that they violate.
But there is a policy that the admin can take here, for 1xbit participants by not displaying a sig for 1xbit participants, again it's not an acceptable idea with a 100% agree decision, back to basically "not moderated".

Banning one scammer while leaving the others unaffected would not address the problem; rather, it will exacerbate it, and what is the point of the DT system if scammers are banned by the moderators? It renders the DT system ineffective by defeating its entire function. There are still active managers on the forum who have stolen thousands of dollars; what justice is there if you prohibit the ones who wear sigs and let go of the ones who pocket money from charity, bounty, and escrow?

That wouldn't solve the problem either; drawing unnecessary attention to 1xbit will only make them famous, just as the OP has done; anyone who disregards the DT feedback on the participants and the manager and becomes a victim shouldn't be our problem; even theymos was against tagging accounts who participated in the Yobit sig campaign a few years ago. (When I find the link, I'll try to quote it.)

Even if we all agreed that it is necessary to ban 1xbit signatures to prevent users from being scammed or protect them from having a hard time finding useful information on a forum that is full of useless spam posts, how would we do that? I mean, how do you distinguish between forbidden signatures and allowed ones? If you ban all the signatures that contain some keywords like "1xbit", it will also result in banning all useful signatures that were created with absolutely good intentions. For example, signatures like "1xbit - scam" or "the list of projects to avoid -" would also be forbidden and banned, and it could result in even more sad consequences such as a decreased unawareness of newcomers that 1xbit should be avoided. Correct me if I am wrong and specific signatures can easily be detected and removed.

Negative tags were never meant to stop people from expressing their opinion, or even from publishing their scams. Negative tags are meant to be a warning. I'd be in favour of showing Trust ratings on all boards, but that has been suggested a few times before and it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

As much as I'd like to get rid of all scams, I do get the "scams are not moderated" stance. Bitcointalk's mission is "to be as free as possible", and as long as they're not causing massive spam (like Yobit did in the past), I don't expect their signature to be banned.
Both online as well as offline I see the same thing happening a lot: people ask for more regulation. They volunteer to sacrifice their freedom bit by bit. Now it's about something I consider a good thing, but next time it's something bad, such as bans for rude comments. I've seen snowflakes make this request a while ago already. The longer I am using Bitcointalk, the more I appreciate theymos' hands off approach.

If a gullible victim doesn't see the ads here, they'll see the same ads at Blockchair or Coinmarketplace. "Be your own bank" means you should "use your own brain".

This guy explained it well:

Why ban the participants if you can easily ban the source which is the 1xbit connected accounts. But this is forum and we are following set of rules which theymos created. Making an additional rules specific for this event will gonna open up for more complicated rules in the future. This is forum and we are all accounted on what we are doing. We don't need to babysit all members here especially if money is involve. There's a lot of trusted casino out there for choices. It's not 1xbit is the only casino here.

Simple - ban signatures that link to 1xbit site(s).


I would argue that we should use our collective brain and realize that allowing such malicious scammers like Yobit (which did happen) and 1xbit (which didn't for some reason) to continue screwing with this forum has no upside. They are not here to discuss Bitcoin, they're here only to spam the shit out of it. And we're pretending that rules are set in stone and there is nothing anyone could possibly do because rules and regulations don't allow it. Doesn't get much more snowflaky than that.

BTW theymos the hands-off guy did ban 1xbit from buying forum ads so there's that. He also e.g. bans users doxing him but not users doxing other people with no trade disputes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2371095). So there's rules and there's different rules.

Can't believe the old line "scams are not moderated here" still floating about.

I mean if there is 100% proof they are scamming why should they be allowed to shitpost all over the forum?

I have had quite intelligent post deleted for less on this forum but pure scams run with impunity.  ? ? ?

The site is probably hosted by someone in the community hence it's being allowed to run wild don't shoot the money maker as they say..

That is also why the message get removed but they don't get banned don't want to waste accounts now do they.

Lol, you can simply ignore those users but no you want to swing your justice sword, what's the difference between you and hitler?

---

---

Then good luck moderating bounties and giveaways if the forum fails to prevent them from scamming then good luck blaming theymos.

From Smokerface To moderator: If this post gets deleted then please let us know the size of suckmoon's cock you've been feeding sucking on. (if they have a cock)

You're hiding the other half of the truth. These 1xbit-ers have already sacrificed a part of your freedom with the uncontrolled spamming. As for the online & offline life, they are non-analogous situations. Those weirdos have nothing to lose by creating alt-accounts, but their statements' significance remains the same. In real life, there's not such advantage.

We should apply bans, for the sake of the community. The conditions of when it's worth to be applied is another thing to discuss. This is where we disagree.

I address to ban because of spamming, not scamming. But, don't turn a blind eye. It's advisable to mention that the service they're advertising isn't known for being legit.

OP reason for the request was the scam, not the spam.
And many are not aware of how much spam those accounts make.
This means that too many replies will address the ban because of scamming. You've also seen that.


I think that best wold be to close this and open a clean new topic about banning because of spam. It should have a much better success than the rather messy discussion we have now there.
What you think about that, _BlackStar?

I'll have to agree with NeuroticFish. You can't expect mods to eliminate this campaign due to their fraudulent activity. That'd be against the rules;

The answer is simple, NO.
how a clear boundary will be set here? what volume of scams is needed to expel someone from the forum?
Also what we will do with some previous campaigns from well-known fraudsters (Yobit for example). are we going to do it retroactively? Also probably all participants won't wear their signature if they know that he will be banned.


it can only be if it is excessive spam. If I remember correctly Yobit's signature has been banned a long time ago. they had an automated campaign practically without restriction ideally for spammers.

Great idea. Now let's do better without disturbing the forum culture of scam moderation to achieve a cleaner community standard of 1xbit signature spammers. I'm not too worried that some of the other campaign will also be on the watchlist. It's no longer about scams, it's more about the actions of spammers.