Ich kann die Sachen effektiver löschen, wenn ihr Report to Moderator benutzt.
Dort hab ich ein Interface und kann auch falsch Meldungen zurückweisen. Gelöste Fälle werden außerdem für mich sichtbar dokumentiert.
Vielen Dank trotzdem für die Mühe.
Vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung! Wenn die Report to Moderator Funktion unkomplizierter ist, mache ich das in Zukunft so anstatt hier rein zu posten. Die obige Liste mit bisherigen auffälligen Autoren ist denke ich ganz hilfreich, um "Mehrfachtäter" einfacher finden zu können, zumindest hatte mir das sehr geholfen. Sollte jemand dort fälschlich drauf landen, bitte hier melden, wäre schade, wenn ihr da ungerechtfertigt draufsteht  Soll ja am Ende allen Leuten helfen, die ihre Übersetzungen ehrlich machen. |
|
|
|
Personally I think Exodus is a good one, very user-friendly. It's a desktop wallet so this is way more secure than an online wallet. For a longterm-storage online wallets are not recommended. But my choice for Exodus is only my point of view. I recommend you to inform yourself about different ones and if you know about their advantages or disadvantages you can make your decision. |
|
|
|
Hier ein ganz dicker Fisch: Thema: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3251793.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3263893.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3360373.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3393965.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3398283.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3453023.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3456433.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3549762.0 hier wurde leider die Übersetzung (Niederländisch) im falschen Subforum gepostet...kommt halt vor, wenn man die Sprachen nicht kennt, in die man "übersetzt"  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3562193.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3595643.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3608725.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3626692.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3700366.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4418115.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4432325.0Autor: KlintDead https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2001459Sprachen, in denen der Autor bereits gepostet hat: Russisch, Niederländisch, Deutsch, Rumänisch, Polnisch, Philippinisch, Portugiesisch => definitiv Übersetzungs-Spam, bitte löschen (5) |
|
|
|
Habe im Altcoin-Bereich eine Sammelstelle für Google-Translate-Übersetzungen eingerichtet, die auch eine Liste mit bisher auffälligen Autoren enthält. Ist vielleicht für die Moderatoren eine Arbeiterleichterung, dort einmal täglich reinzuschauen, damit verdächtige Übersetzungen mit allen Infos auf einen Blick gut aufbereitet sind. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415262.0 |
|
|
|
Thema: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4441013.0Autor: itachihl https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1983822Sprachen, in denen der Autor bereits gepostet hat: Niederländisch, Deutsch, Japanisch, Vietnamesisch Sonstige Auffälligkeiten keshvin, bereits bekannt aus der obigen Liste, gibt einen Kommentar in englisch (?) ab weil er sich ärgert, dass ein anderer Übersetzungs-Spammer (itachihl) ihm zuvorgekommen ist. Da frage ich mich, warum kommentiert man im deutschen Subforum in englisch? Jetzt ist es schon so schlimm, dass sich die Übersetzungs-Spammer gegenseitig die Projekte weg nehmen => definitiv Übersetzungs-Spam => löschen (5)
Thema: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4437183.0Autor: keshvin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1669728Sonstige Bemerkungen Autor war bereits mit 2 Artikeln auffällig geworden (siehe Liste). Da er damals noch nicht viel gepostet hatte, war der Verdacht eher gering => Verdacht bestätigt => sehr wahrscheinlich ein Übersetzungs-Spammer (4) Edit 26.06.2018: keshvin hat sich bei mir gemeldet und hat bestätigt, dass seine er korrekt übersetzt => aus Liste entfernt
|
|
|
|
Self-Moderation should exist. I agree, but this wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was to limit self-moderation only for confirmed scammers abusing this function purposefully. Just because a person is a scammer,he shouldn't lose his right of free speech. The freedom of speech wouldn't be affected with my idea. The scammer can still post everything he wants to, only limitation would be that he isn't able to delete critical comments from his ANN. After all my idea would ensure freedom of speech because there is no option to delete comments by the scammer. In this case I metioned the scammer abusing this function by deleting warnings from other members in his self-moderated threads. If the self-moderation would be disabled for him as a confirmed scammer he must arrange with comments in his thread he doesn't like. Thats freedom of speach: arrange with critical comments and I'm sure every scammer won't like it |
|
|
|
So the big suggestion here is to not allow self-moderated threads. I wouldn't be opposed to that, since they bring far more benefit to scammers than to ordinary members--but scams aren't even moderated on bitcointalk, so I highly doubt Theymos is going to do away with that feature. It's better to just be on guard for bullshit. Only disable self-moderation for scammers if they have a high negative trust score - this needs to be confirmed by several DT-Members (with red trust), so we have a sufficient proof that it is a real scammer abusing this function in his thread to delete comments pointing out his project is a scam. But you're right it is unlikely there will be a change - it's implemention might be difficult.  If I may make a suggestion: Get to the point with threads like this. The part of your post I quoted is your idea, and the rest of your post is kind of just fluff. There are many of us with attention span disorders, and we love posts that get straight to the point.
I tried to point out, why I had this idea and give an example for an abuse of self-moderation. I can imagine you have to read a lot here, especially lots of bullshit posts, so I will try to get straight to my point the next time. The same as in my original post could have been said in less words, that's true. Personally I think self-moderation is a very good function, if you are creating an interesting topic and it gets flooded instantly by bullshit spam comments. I have already an idea of a new topic where a self-moderation could be very helpful - stay tuned! But the abuse of self-moderation is exactly the other side: giving scammers a tool to erase comments pointing out this scam. I really appreciate the positive sides, the last thing I want here is censorship. But we all know about the members misleading users and their intention to scam others. So finally we can say: there are two sides of the same coin. |
|
|
|
A few days ago I exposed a scammer promoting his new project "Bitconnext". He got so angry and tagged everyone, who left him negative trust. His tell-tales are just ridiculous and if someone reads this it'll be obvious that the person who has left the negative feedback is a liar and a scammer. Just have a look into it, it seems to be normal, that if you expose scammers they'll tag you. Like The Pharmacist already said: it's not trusted feedback, so it won't affect your trust score. Don't worry, keep up the good work, OP!  |
|
|
|
Meh, it would be sort of censorship, and against everything this forum stands for; Free speech. The forum doesn't really moderate scams, and I don't think limiting a scammer of creating self moderated threads is fair. Creating a new thread, and referencing it us probably good enough in the majority of cases I think.
They well be a scammer, but censorship is censorship. If you don't want to get your comment deleted open up a thread where others can also share their thoughts.
Thats a good point, censorship is nothing we want to have here, and we have to choose the requirements to disable self-moderation very carefully. Like over 100 negative trust or even more. So a huge number of DT members has to confirm his intention to scam other members. But my suggestion is no censorship, the scammer still can do comments in his threads and promote his scam, no problem, even it's a bad scam, but he isn't able to delete critical ones. This is the point I want to make. He is confrontated with other opinions about his confirmed scam and can't erase them. |
|
|
|
I’ve an interesting suggestion that could help to complicate promoting scams in the forum: It’s not a secret, that lots of scammers promote their scams in this forum. So it’s important to warn other members and ask critical questions. But there is a problem if OP creates a self-moderated ANN: He can delete all critical comments he doesn’t like.
Why I had this idea? The problem appeared when the scammer yokxashor https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1958276 made an ANN and Bounty for his MLM Ponzi Bitconnext (next Bitconnect). I opened a scam accusation a few days ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4413982.0There were critical comments in his self-moderated ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4378430 and so he closed it instantly. As a result, now the critical comments were made in the Bounty https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4377997.0 warning the Bounty participants that this project is an obvious scam. I posted two warnings, both were deleted:  So he can continue promoting his scam, the only thing he has to do is deleting all warnings...
It would be great to prevent this abuse in the future that scammers cannot create and run self-moderated posts. Someone who is extremely untrustworthy shouldn’t be allowed to delete critical comments here and promote his scam. Requirement to disable the self-moderation is a really high red trust score over 50 (just an idea). So many DT members have to confirm, that OP is a real scammer. What do you think about it? If someone is a well known scammer and promotes his platform in his ANN by deleting critical comments, this is an obvious abuse of self-moderation. |
|
|
|
Thank you, I'll suggest it later in the Meta forum.
The subject has been raised many times. You use the word "we" as in "we" should do this or "we" should do that; it's not "we" it's theymos, and he's showed no inclination in previous cases. Oh, if it's very unlikely to have a change, so this suggestion is maybe wasted time. But i think if we can bring it up again and some DT members are positive about it it's possilbe to have a chance in long term to change it. I don't want to spam in Meta, but I found these topics so far: Suggestion of 100 posts required to start a self-moderated topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1301474.0Limitation on the following boards: marketplace/Goods(plus all subsections), Currency exchange: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2910321.0For a connection to trust I found nothing so far. See you later, I'm away some hours |
|
|
|
snip
You should be very careful by doing such disrespectful accusations! I think it's very likely you will be banned soon, if you continue posting bullshit like this and your MLM Ponzi Scam!  Sorry for crashing your platform, but that's the only thing you deserve! We did not started our platform yet and nobody lost anything.
We work to keep it that way. Maybe it’s an interesting idea if someone has a high negative trust score to disable the function of self-moderation. Now it’s a clear abuse of self-moderation by him to promote his scam. Actually that's a pretty good idea. Many scammers do indeed abuse the self-moderation thread function to prevent warning posts from alerting other users. You should post that suggestion in the 'Meta' forum and see what kind of response it gets. It's always worth mentioning ideas like this even if only to sound it out as a possible solution to scammer abuses. Thank you, I'll suggest it later in the Meta forum. |
|
|
|
He's already got a script set up deleting any of my posts in that bounty thread advising people that the OP has been confirmed as a scammer and that their support will result in negative trust being issued. I guess we'll just have to monitor it and neg accordingly until people get the message. Yes, he deleted my warning for new participants not to waste their time for this scam, too: https://i.imgur.com/CkkKQzK.jpgMaybe it’s an interesting idea if someone has a high negative trust score to disable the function of self-moderation. Now it’s a clear abuse of self-moderation by him to promote his scam. So, we could prevent this abuse in the future. Someone who is extremely untrustworthy shouldn’t be allowed to delete critical comments here. This change would be a drastic intervention so we have to think about it carefully if we want to do this and disable the self-moderation only if the red trust score is over 50 (just an idea, or maybe 100). So many DT members have to confirm this. |
|
|
|
Good job! But yes, on second thought it’s a pity, it was just getting funny. I almost ordered some popcorn.  What a shame Bitconnext gives up already... Probably they've made enough money... Insider-tip: there is still a chance to post some negative feedback: Bounty Bitconnext: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4377997.0 |
|
|
|
I just posted this in their self modded thread; I wonder if it will last, 'specially now Gleb's turned up too.....
Yes, let's see. But it isn't deleted so far. If you are not random and unknown people then tell us your names, give us your bios and show us your faces. You must be well known, as For years our team has been working on projects that take advantage of the possibilities offered by cryptocurrency trading. Prove it. Maybe they have hired some employees from Bitconnect... So yes, they have people who have 'been working on projects that take advantage of the possibilities offered by cryptocurrency trading'. - Take the advantage for themselves. (but I don't even know if it can be said Bitconnect existed for years...) |
|
|
|
Ich bin nicht sicher, ob das etwas bringt, außer Verwaltungsaufwand. Die schnellste und einfachste Variante ist reporten und Löschen durch phantastisch.
In Wahrheit würde es schon ausreichen, wenn jeder Projektleiter darauf achtet, an wem die Übersetzungstätigkeit vergeben wird. Dazu reicht ein schneller Blick auf die Posting History.
Da ist natürlich was dran, wahrscheinlich ist es so für die Moderatoren eher mehr Arbeitsaufwand. Mit dem extra Beitrag wäre es so, dass man als Moderator hier einmal täglich reinschauen kann, sieht die Grundlage und prüft das. Gut daran wäre noch, dass Falschlöschungen vermieden werden, ich weiß nicht inwiefern das aktuell häufig vorkommt. Morgen kommt bestimmt eine Rückmeldung, ob so eine zentrale Sammelstelle, wo jeder was öffentlich reinstellen kann, eine gute Idee ist oder zu viel Aufwand. |
|
|
|
So könnte das dann aussehen: (gibt sicher noch mehr davon) Thema: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4035400.0Autor: all in 1 Translations https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1720082Sprachen, in denen der Autor postet: Russisch, Chinesisch, Japanisch, Polnisch, Deutsch, Türkisch, Niederländisch, Griechisch => definitiv ein Übersetzungs-Spammer => löschen (5)
Thema: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3068701.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2947119.0Autor: itranslate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1644550Sprachen, in denen der Autor bereits gepostet hat: Russisch, Polnisch, Englisch, Deutsch Erste Posts des Accounts in Russisch. Ebenfalls involviert: OV3RLORD, Sergey Sergeenko (CTO des ICOs) offenbar alle aus dem russischsprachigen Forum. Auch etwas seltsam: auf Fragen wird nicht direkt geantwortet und wenn, dann nur mit Videos oder auf Englisch. => prüfen, ob zu löschen oder nicht (3)
Thema: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3489218.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3473911.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3470392.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3468872.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4075799.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3842588.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3756167.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4359573.0Autor: SuperBuG https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2001498Sprachen, in denen der Autor bereits gepostet hat: Rumänisch, Indonesisch, Deutsch, Kroatisch, Niederländisch, Philippinisch, Portugiesisch => definitiv Übersetzungs-Spam => löschen (5)
Thema: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3806763.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4391597.0Autor: keshvin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1669728=> nicht so eindeutig, da der Autor noch nicht viel anderes gepostet hat => prüfen, ob zu löschen oder nicht (1) Edit 26.06.2018: keshvin hat sich bei mir gemeldet und hat bestätigt, dass seine er korrekt übersetzt => aus Liste entfernt
Thema: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3172017.0 Autor: identifyuser https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=227450Sprachen, in denen der Autor bereits gepostet hat: nur Englisch Ist bereits als Betrüger markiert => nicht so eindeutig => prüfen, ob zu löschen oder nicht (3)
Thema: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2715411.0Autor: wwzsocki https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=131333Post befindet sich sowieso an der falschen Stelle (deutsch), unter Altcoins befindet sich der originale Artikel von einem anderen Autor: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2335540.0 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
