Maybe the fact that you have an "ass-back" is the reason. No one wants to touch one of those.

Please do. If you think people are being attacked unfairly, then please tell us which accounts and why. Trust abusers and manipulators have no place on DT, and if you provide evidence of such activities, then action can be taken against these users.

The fact that you are hiding behind and alt account and refusing to clearly state your claim suggests that you have no such evidence and are here only to stir the pot.

That won't change this situation. These users have had a year since the introduction of merit and haven't spent a single one. They clearly are not in the least bit interested in sending merit, and therefore, not in the least bit interested in how many sMerits they have available. Decaying what they are already not using won't change their habits, but will reduce the amount of merit being circulated from other users.

Additionally, if you don't tell us which ratings of theirs you are disagreeing with, then we can't address them. Saying they "abuse their position" is meaningless - these users have left hundreds of accurate feedbacks.

If you feel you have been wrongly red tagged, then simply state which tags you think are wrong and we can begin the process of looking in to it. If you refuse to do so, then there is nothing we can do to help you.

OP is almost certainly linked to this project: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098949.0

The scam accusation topic was created by lovesmayfamilis here, and the other 3 have all left negative trust. It is the only scam in the last month that links all 4 users. You can also see the edit at the bottom of the ANN post that is very similar in both style and content to OP's posts here.

Selling fake or forged documents is illegal, which is against site rules:


This would be a case for mods to delete the post and ban the user, rather than DT to tag. I've reported him as such.

ICO Name: Pieta

ANN Thread 1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095746.0
Archived: https://archive.is/Aw8I3

ANN Thread 2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100728.0
Archived: https://archive.is/ciJkW

Profile 1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2523532
Profile 2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2532497

Website: https://pieta.network/
Whitepaper: https://pieta.network/WhitePaper.pdf

Reason: Whitepaper plagiarized from "Phoneum"
Source: https://phoneum.io/phoneum_whitepaper.pdf

Comparison below. Pieta on left and Phoneum on right.

 


 


       

Bump

I agree with you there. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I'm meaning spam threads in Bitcoin Discussion, like this one as a random example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5077882.0. There is nothing in the last several pages that hasn't been said multiple times before, and >90% of posts are just shitposts. There is zero chance that someone is going to come in on page 12 with some groundbreaking new information or amazing post and salvage that thread. There is no good reason to leave it open.


Only because we are letting it be pointless. If we actually clamped down on these spam threads early, before they became 10/20/30 pages long, and locked old threads which are being necrobumped, it would go a long way to cleaning the place up.

To follow on from what hilarious has said:

Take DdmrDdmr's data from this thread.

The board with the highest merit/post ratio is Technical Discussion. Go to Technical Discussion, click on any thread, and see which signatures are popping up - ChipMixer, CryptoGames, Bitvest, etc. Campaigns which pay in BTC. The board with the lowest ratios are all the Altcoin boards. Go to Altcoin Discussion, click on any thread, and you are met with 20 different signatures for 20 different coins/tokens, none of which you have ever heard of, and all of which probably won't still be around in 6 months.

We don't need the data to tell us that, however. Anyone who has been here for more than a month knows that the spam problem is because of these altcoin campaigns. When they can create the payment out of thin air with no cost to themselves, they are happy to pay for any old trash. It's not signatures per se that are the issue, it is that there is an infinite amount of trash coins which can be given away in exchange for signature space. If we forced all campaigns to pay in BTC, they would quickly become much more selective about who they let in - the incentive for spamming would disappear and the incentive for making good posts would increase.

I also agree with the points made regarding the Guildelines sticky. What's the point in it even being there when it is completely ignored.

That's a bit extreme even for me, but I could see an argument for locking every topic on Bitcoin Discussion that has been dead for ≥ 4 weeks. Even if the mods became super obliging and lock all the threads I'm reporting, all it takes is one spammer and 10 minutes and the front page is full of necrobumped trash. It really does need constantly vigilance to keep it under control.

I do the same - if there are users actually discussing things in between all the spam, then I just report the spam and leave the thread. I think in almost every case I'm back in that thread within a week though, reporting more spam and this time reporting for locking as well, as users trying to have actual discussions don't hang around very long when their posts are drowned in a sea of nonsense.


I'm still hoping for a reply from a mod or two regarding my initial post.

Locking this thread since the trolls have arrived and I forgot to make it self-moderated.

I am in no way affiliated with freebitco.in, so don't falsely accuse me as well, thanks.

Anyway, here's a random snapshot of freebitco.in from 3 years ago:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160126063458/https://freebitco.in/


Notice the "Terms of Service" button, exactly the same as it is today. Just because you didn't bother to read the terms, doesn't mean they weren't there or you don't have to follow them. You can play one account via a VPN or proxy - as the terms state you are forbidden from "creating multiple accounts".

Anyway, I'm sure a service that is running a $30,000 giveaway was actually all just a front to steal your $20. $20 that they gave you for free, before stealing back from you, apparently.

True, but I've actually found the mods to be very obliging when dealing with new topics which are:

A) In the wrong section
B) Duplicates of existing topics
C) Meaningless, nonsense, low value, likely spam magnets, etc

As long as you can catch them before they get too many replies, then they almost always get deleted.

I would love to get Bitcoin Discussion properly cleared up - I've said multiple times before that I believe it should be the "backbone" board of the forum, for obvious reasons. As it stands, it's not bad (certainly nowhere near as bad as the Altcoin section), but it's not great either.

Getting shitposts deleted is easy, and the mods seem quite happy to assist there. Getting threads locked is harder, and the majority of my "unhandled" and "bad" reports are from suggestions to lock threads that the mods have obviously disagreed with. As I mentioned above, I'm aware I probably fall on the more aggressive side of the spectrum for what I think should be locked, but when I can report >75% of the posts for spam, then that's a no brainer for me. We also see lots of threads that have been dead for a few weeks or longer being bumped back to the front page with a nonsense one-liner, and then they once again start attracting a new spam post every few minutes.

It's frustrating, because if we aren't going to lock these threads, then I'm starting to struggle to see the point. I could quite happily sit and report spam posts 24/7, but if we don't lock the threads these posts are appearing in, then there will always be more.

That's not a bad idea. Having thought on it for a few minutes, I am instead going to start including in my reports for locking something along the lines of "I have reported x number of spam posts from this thread". The mod in question can either take my word for it, or will know to check modlog to confirm what I'm saying.

I might be way off mark here and the mods know all this already and just don't agree with some of my reports. I do tend to be more on the heavy handed side when reporting spam megathreads because they annoy me so much.

Let's say I come across a spam mega-thread in Bitcoin Discussion that needs locked. What I currently do is go through the last week's worth of posts and report the spam ones (which is usually a significant proportion) for deletion. My logic here is to try to hinder those bounty spammers who are profiting from this nonsense, but any posts over a week old have probably already been paid so I don't waste my time on them. Once I've done that, I then report the OP for the thread to be locked.

Now, the spam posts are usually cleared within a few hours, but the reports for the thread to be locked can sometimes take more than a day. I assume that the reports for locking are waiting to be actioned by a "higher" mod than the one who deleted the spam. My query is this: By cleaning up the thread before I report it for locking, making the last several pages look much better, is the thread less likely to be locked? With all of the spam posts on the last several pages deleted, it does make the thread look less like a spamfest and more like some actual discussion/conversation is going on. There are some reports I have made for threads to be locked, threads which I considered completely barn-door spamfests, that have sat "unhandled" for weeks/indefinitely, and I wonder if I am shooting myself in the foot by cleaning these threads up before I report them.

I completely agree with your points regarding teaching people to do their own due diligence, and yes, some noobs will get scammed regardless of how much you try to warn them. There is no helping some people.

However, I completely disagree with your point that because we can never tag 100% of scammers, we should therefore not tag any scammers. It's like saying because seatbelts don't save 100% of lives, we should stop wearing them - all they do is give people a veil of safety, which in turn encourages them to drive more dangerously. I just don't agree. Yes, some scammers will get away with it, but we shouldn't be using that as justification to just let the scammers roam freely.

Go to the freebitco.in landing page and click on "Terms of Service" underneath the login box. You are greeted with the following pop up:



"Please do not try to abuse the free giveaway by creating multiple accounts and collecting the free prize more than once every hour using proxies or similar IP address changing applications/services."

This is clearly a lie, and you obviously did not bother to read their Terms of Service as you say you did. Their terms aren't exactly long or complicated to understand. What you did was a direct violation and as such your account was banned and your balance forfeited, as their terms stated would happen.

Because as I said, newbies are regularly fooled by these scams. What may seem like a blatantly obvious scam to you or me is often just convincing enough to lure in someone less familiar with this space, who doesn't know that "bitcoin doublers" aren't a real thing or some users shill their own scam threads with fake accounts.

As is the case in most jurisdictions around the world, where a plan or attempt to commit a crime is a crime itself, we don't need a scam to be successful to know it is a scam. There is no benefit to letting these scammers get one or two "for free" before tagging them.