- Removing spam and thread hijacking posts.
Correct. Especially if you're tagging hundreds of shady people/scammers like myself and a few other DT members. Not a single thread of mine would be unaffected.
Maybe this option should be disallowed for lower ranks, but then again, they might still be affected by the above. |
|
|
|
Anyway i like to further discus the remaining open questions.
Which are? How to face the spam with all these progress posts for example? Form my point as a dev they are totally useless and unneeded they only have one purpose, drawing attention so why not try get rid of the them? On what scale? Your project or forum wide? For the project you can: a) Do external submissions as I've pointed out. b) Run self-moderated threads. For the latter, I don't have anything to say. It's been an on-going battle for years, with less and less proper action from the forum administration. |
|
|
|
Well then we will consider to remove the bonus (would love to hear to opinion of more people before we take action). Regarding the submissions, why should we remove also the post of "submissions", as this seems not to violating the rules right or is at least "best practice"?
I used the word optimally exactly because it isn't against the rules. It helps avoid unnecessary spam and it's actually easier to track of (Google forms and sheets). Saw a few right now on the first page in the bounty board.
I don't spend my day watching a trashcan. giving a bonus to encourage posting in your own thread is not allowed
Correct. require your participants spamming the threads with submissions is totally valid
Correct, unfortunately. require people to post in certain threads is not allowed but widely ignored
Correct. I'd think offering an additional bonus to post in the ANN thread would fall into the category of an ICO bumping scheme, which is close enough to an ICO bumping service and is equally as shady and untrustworthy when you are at a forum where bumping more than once every 24 hours is not allowed. Incentivizing or paying someone to bump your thread is not something that has been allowed in the past and I doubt will be allowed in the future. Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections. From now on, posting or replying to such threads could result in being banned. Existing threads will be locked.
Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your threads. You can't offer to pay people who post their addresses, usernames, etc. You can do giveaways off-site and link to the giveaway page in a thread, but you can't give people any bonus for replying to your thread.
Similar threads are already restricted to Games and Rounds in the non-altcoin sections, but the giveaway-related post volume is so high in the altcoin sections that I've decided to just ban them entirely here.
Great find. Someone really needs to make a summary of his posts in a single thread for easy referencing. Anyway i like to further discus the remaining open questions.
Which are? |
|
|
|
-snip-
If you can't trust a Mod here with the trust system who can you trust? LOL
BROKEN
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the trust system, which is why you believe that the mentioned case is abuse. It is not. Remember how much you was a pain in the ass 3 years ago on shadowcash irc with your FUD. That's why I didn't remove the negative trust and will not.
If that is truly the case, then you shouldn't.
Thread has been answered already. |
|
|
|
My feedback on you seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Furthermore, you've followed this up by leaving a false retaliatory negative rating on me. What exactly do you think this will accomplish? More people tagging you for your spiteful behavior? Insinuating that I have a personal vendetta against some random such as yourself (in your first sentence) is definitely a great way of attempting to converse "like adults". Keep it up.
Other than the properly written English, this is yet another useless thread full of whining and lies. Don't get me started on the ridiculous (in)coherence in your PM. I grade it 2/7. |
|
|
|
So if we remove the "bonus" than it would be again ok? Sorry i dont get it.
Optimally, you'd remove both the bonus and keep submissions out of Bitcointalk (e.g. Google forms or a dedicated platform). However, keep in mind that shitposters will still probably make occasional submissions via the thread (based on my experience). You can ignore those. If your thread isn't as active, then you can bump it once per 24 hours. Also like i said their are a lot of bounty programs that require you to post in theire ann thread to get the "bonus/bounty".
Then they need to be tackled as well. If you know any, feel free to report them in this section. You, at Copytrack, need to terminate the spam incentive. Pending further discussion[1] and evaluation, I will likely tag every single account that did this.
I just added a hint to our program that we dont will not tolerate spam. It will take a moment to also implement this into our system but we will do our best to improve the quality of the posts. We shall see. |
|
|
|
How does that differ from the requirement to post your stats? Require posting your stats to get a payment does exactly the same, its attention is to get as most as possible attention.
Completely wrong. Posting your submissions in the thread to apply for a bounty =/= posting your stats in the thread to receive a bonus. -snip-
You, at Copytrack, need to terminate the spam incentive. Pending further discussion[1] and evaluation, I will likely tag every single account that did this.
Still waiting for some reasonable input. @shitposters and bounty farmers: Go away. |
|
|
|
If there is evidence that the intent is malicious, then the new member will get tagged. This happened to me a few days ago with someone giving me 50 merit points and insinuating that I might have bought it from them. They have subsequently received a negative rating from me.
I am not talking of members like you. Talking of new members up to Member rank or so. I am sure there accounts are also precious for them. What evidence can they give ? Evidence of what? For someone to get neg. rated for the mentioned reason, the following is required: 1) Someone to abuse it, e.g. sending merit to your enemy. 2) Someone to notice and report it. 3) Someone(s) to evaluate it. 4) Someone to act upon it.
Somewhere down the line, somebody is either going to notice: a) That the member sending the merit points is dishonest. b) That the report (evidence) isn't sufficient for a tag. |
|
|
|
All you had to do is read some content before opening another thread. So what are you proposing that be done against shady behavior regarding the merit system? Nothing? Or are you simply saying that *we could/should* tag them, but that some of the tag's by actmyname were unwarranted?
I think that tagging may be appropriate in particularly obvious cases, or particularly egregious cases involving hundreds of merit points and several posts. But generally you should start out by assuming good faith, and only change that opinion as the evidence really piles up. Tagging someone immediately after an instance of apparently-inexplicable meriting is too trigger-happy IMO. Even if it is a case of illegitimate merit, even hundreds of illegitimate merit points are not much of a problem IMO, so you have to ask whether it's worthwhile to possibly make a mistake by tagging someone who is merely suspicious. Alright. So it is clear that we should tag people similarly how we tag people for trust abuse (e.g. leaving positive trust to your own alt). I do think that hundreds of merit points are quite a big problem, in fact. Sure, the fool will likely end up with nothing eventually. However(!), hundreds of points being spent on your own army of shitposting accounts can have a significant impact (multiplied by the number of people doing it) for quite some time (until they run out/get caught). Now, I'm not 100% sure that actmyname's ratings are outside of what I would consider appropriate, which is why I didn't take action to immediately remove him. But from what I've seen, it does seem likely that he is too trigger-happy.
It's probably due to him being a newcomer to the DT system. I'm sure he learn and act accordingly. Suppose a new member gets 5-10 merit points for some of his posts in total. Now he gives these points to a enemy here for a short post. This may raise suspicion among the senior members and both members may be given negative trust. Isn't is unjustified for the later member ? How is the staff going to tackle this ?
If there is evidence that the intent is malicious, then the new member will get tagged. This happened to me a few days ago with someone giving me 50 merit points and insinuating that I might have bought it from them. They have subsequently received a negative rating from me. |
|
|
|
I gave OP a merit point because he obviously put some thought into his posts, which is more than can be said for 90% of users here.
He's on the SMAS list at the time of writing, thus no merit from me. I am very uncomfortable with the merit giveaway threads. I myself have neither entered any of them, or even checked to see if I was eligible. I know that some of the people running them are well-intended; and I don’t think there will be any long-term damage, if such threads be only a temporary phenomenon during the exciting and tumultuous initial phase of the new system. But widening such threads into a permanent, formally organized institution would undermine the merit system.
There is and must be one, and only one proper way to earn merit: By making high-quality, on-topic posts in the forum appropriate for their subject matter.
I concur. While it may take some time until this filter works as it should (i.e. some people may be posting good posts in sections that are filled with garbage, ergo they are hard to find right now), I don't prefer the giveaways. They create the wrong incentives. I was also thinking about *merit bounties* that are not just about posts (e.g. do X to get Y). We must definitely prevent the system from going into that direction and tag all the participating parties if it comes to that. Merit sources may need to develop more elaborate distribution strategies, given the importance of the task entrusted to them.
Fully agreed, there. Not yet. Read my italic mention above. |
|
|
|
Tor user here. Cypherpunk who remembers that it took an excruciatingly long time to generate 4096-bit RSA PGP keys on 90s hardware. I am strictly pseudonymous. I am so dedicated to encrypting everything, everywhere, all the time, -snip- If you really think that a crypto anarchist / cyberpunk / anyone reasonable/rational/knowledgeable (i.e. any desirable user) is going to submit KYC to become a merit source or even to register here, then you are a nutjob.
I wonder why Jet Cash merited this shitpost.
Me, too. ...you were saying? You seem to know your privacy stuff. I respect people who work on their opsec. I wonder why Jet Cash merited this shitpost.
Because Jet Cash doesn't like the system. S/he feels they got screwed out of reaching Legendary status because they were close to hitting the range as the merit system was deployed. You'll notice that Jet Cash has a lot of schemes to try to get people to spend their merits on his/her posts, which are usually thinly veiled to appear as though he's a promoter of the system. I think that Jet Cash would need to speak for Jet Cash. Anyway, arguendo, dislike for the merit system would not adequately explain giving merit to anything “KYC”. Agreed. I dislike the merit system as a solution for the problems that we've been facing, given the other simpler solutions that could have been implemented. However, my dislike of the system is not going to manifest itself in giving merit to someone who wants KYC on a crypto-forum. (Funny, that. I was just now perusing forum archives, trying to learn more about the trust system and DT. I got quite an eyeful about QuickSeller... and here he is! It figures that he gave merit to OP.)
The reason he gave OP merit is because I called out the Jet Cash for giving him merit. Had I not gotten involved, he would not likely have given any points here. It's quite obvious and most people are just sick of his vendetta bullshit (hence his -1k rating). I saw a guy uploading certificates and other personal stuff in another thread on this forum so yeah people in dire circumstances are fucking desperate for money and could do anything. I am not sure which group is bigger - the one consisting of narcissistic douchebags or the one comprised of desperate earners.
People who do that should explicitly be banned from participating in any campaigns. People who are desperate for money via campaigns are up to no good and are contributing to the problem. I don’t know what you mean by “certificates”, but I presume you refer to some sort of identity info. There is a thriving black market for such things. — (Edited to add:) This could be an easy means to “cash out”. (Somehow, I overlooked this before. Thanks for highlighting it.) Can you add link to that thread ? Was it added to show identity proof to a campaign manager ?
Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg29396753#msg29396753. Tl;dr: User and his alts got busted for shitposting and abusing campaigns. He then proceeded to claim that *his whole family* is behind those accounts, i.e. 1 person per account. I don't buy it. Abuse is abuse. |
|
|
|
Fairly sure most people understand the concept of "burden of proof"... it would just appear that there are differing opinions on who is supposed to bear that burden.
It's easier for them to complain and not provide any proof whatsoever. 
I'm not sure whether the above is worse or spamming the one who left you a rating with "Pls sir remove rating". |
|
|
|
Lauda, take a chill pill. You’re only sore at Quickseller because he was brave enough to dare deny that you are theymos ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1912107.msg18974863#msg18974863). Hurt your ego, did it? Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day—and even a Quickseller must be honest at least once in a lifetime. He pwned you there, revealing THE TRUTH that you are not theymos. Sorry, the truth can be painful sometimes.  |
|
|
|
There's also this: Account stats
Post your stats in our bitcointalk Bounty Topic and earn twice the stakes!
Below you find a prepared post with your stats:
Do not post your stats more than once per day
It seems like you get twice the payment if you spam the forum. I think it is time to start tagging the participants too. What do you think Welsh? |
|
|
|
|
I could tag them all for the shilling and trust farming in the meantime. However, you'd need to provide a list of thread and users for me to look at. Other than that, all you can do is wait and *hope* that someone will take action.
|
|
|
|
Sorry to rain on your parade, but unless another member of DT-1 excludes him as well, he will still be in DT-2.
theymos excluding his is a pretty strong message. No. From a technical standpoint, either Blazed needs to remove actmyname from his trust list, or someone else trusted by DefaultTrust needs to exclude him, however Blazed may very well be at risk of being removed from being trusted by DefaultTrust if he does not remove actmyname.
Wrong; there is no risk for Blazed whatsoever. Stop harassing others, you basement dwelling pest. Oh right, now I see why: -1010: -10 / +14. Now, I'm not 100% sure that actmyname's ratings are outside of what I would consider appropriate, which is why I didn't take action to immediately remove him. But from what I've seen, it does seem likely that he is too trigger-happy.
This is easily corrected between the two users.
Other than the escrow scammer/account farmer, and OP, everyone is in support of actmyname in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
@theymos: This is usually a sign that you should discuss the ratings with Actmyname and revoke the exclusion.
|
|
|
|
So what are you proposing that be done against shady behavior regarding the merit system? Nothing? Or are you simply saying that *we could/should* tag them, but that some of the tag's by actmyname were unwarranted?
I think that tagging may be appropriate in particularly obvious cases, or particularly egregious cases involving hundreds of merit points and several posts. But generally you should start out by assuming good faith, and only change that opinion as the evidence really piles up. Tagging someone immediately after an instance of apparently-inexplicable meriting is too trigger-happy IMO. Even if it is a case of illegitimate merit, even hundreds of illegitimate merit points are not much of a problem IMO, so you have to ask whether it's worthwhile to possibly make a mistake by tagging someone who is merely suspicious. Alright. So it is clear that we should tag people similarly how we tag people for trust abuse (e.g. leaving positive trust to your own alt). I do think that hundreds of merit points are quite a big problem, in fact. Sure, the fool will likely end up with nothing eventually. However(!), hundreds of points being spent on your own army of shitposting accounts can have a significant impact (multiplied by the number of people doing it) for quite some time (until they run out/get caught). Now, I'm not 100% sure that actmyname's ratings are outside of what I would consider appropriate, which is why I didn't take action to immediately remove him. But from what I've seen, it does seem likely that he is too trigger-happy.
It's probably due to him being a newcomer to the DT system. I'm sure he learn and act accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
