I guess they wanted to increase their brand exposure. Their primedice brand is pretty well known, but I guess there were too many copycats emulating them, so they decided to create stake, which is closer to what you would see in a real casino. I don’t think their stake brand is as well known.

I don’t think they need to have every page of every thread contain one or their ads. People read enough threads to see an ad that only appears in 2-3% of thread pages, and they’ll probably see it multiple times.

I don’t think Steve is serious about wanting to improve the impact his advertising campaign has on the forum.

IMO, he should hire someone to help manage it, based on his request to message him on telegram, it doesn’t sound like he even has time to review applications. If he were to perform even very basic due diligence on potential participants, it would go a long way in weeding out the spammers— he could have basic requirements such as minimum earned merit and recent earned merit, and review the last couple of pages of potential participants post history. If he were to even casually check post lengths on several posters, he would pretty quickly weed out any spammers who make their way into the campaign.

The biggest evidence that Stake has no interest in weeding out the spammers from their campaign is their pay rates. No one in their right mind would advertise for them at the rates they are offering, who has halfway decent post quality. They would choose to either not advertise anything, or find another campaign that pays 10x as much. The only people they will attract are those who have no idea what they are talking about and are willing to post crap.

As it stands now, their advertising campaign is doing more harm than good because it is associating their brand with harm to the community.

You would have to ask Vod if he keeps information about the date of posts that were deleted, or at least when they were deleted and cross reference this with when they posted an application in the stake.com signature campaign thread.

Hilarious also has access to old reports, but I’m not sure how far back what he has access to goes.

He is trying to show he is doing something about the problem he caused in response to this thread and the possibility he won’t be able to advertise via spammers anymore. His solution isn’t going to work— it isn’t the community’s job to police his spammers and his proposal isn’t being taken very well.

IMO, there are maybe 5 or so that are wearing their signature that doesn’t post complete garbage.

Name   Profile link   Merit   Rank   Posts Deleted
Catmurs   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1817406   1   Junior Member   127
Akshat21   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1929411   1   Junior Member   110
Yatsan   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=857883   40   Hero   94
lyks15   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1126017   0   Full Member   93
okala   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1108241   5   Full Member   64
furylmz   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=983794   1   Senior   58
Carrelmae10   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1181642   0   Member   56
Adriano2010   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=514126   12   Hero   56
steampunkz   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=944644   18   Senior   54
LUCKMCFLY   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1153977   40   Full Member   51
mrdeposit   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=77867   3   Hero   45
blockman   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=816893   13   Hero   42
xvids   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=948175   13   Senior   42
cryptjh   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1188761   23   Full Member   35
alisafidel58   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=782621   26   Full Member   32
Haunebu   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=218075   34   Hero   30
Bitinity   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=449846   56   Lendendary   29
CryptoBry   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=994859   39   Senior   29
Ximoandali   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2173628   1   Junior Member   28

all apparently in your campaign...

I messaged SteveStake when I created this thread asking him to comment, and pointing him to this thread. It seems he has responded by creating this thread soliciting reports of signature spammers. 

If you have questions about the ability to trust aTriz, please see this thread.

Hopefully someone is cleaning up reports against those with stake signatures in light of this thread. Hopefully that signature of yours will be gone soon.


8 posts is a lot to be removed by moderators. This is something I would worry about.

Without knowing the content of the posts or the threads the posts were posted in, it is difficult to say why specifically they were removed.

Edit: per DarkStar_ the posts were low effort posts.

[you have to watch the video to get the reference]

Do you think this is how certain users secure advertising deals managing advertising campaigns that pay so well?

---

Re that guys specific situation, I am not sure Yelp is actually involved in the shady behavior, but that saleswoman appears to be pretty unethical if what that guy was saying is true.

A problem with yelp is that all the reviews claim to be actual customers but they don’t actually verify this to be true.

Yes, this is most likely the root cause of why they have so many low quality posters in their campaign, and so few good posters.

It is nonsense this is off topic or derailing the thread. This thread is about the large number of bans, which you are playing a role in causing via your bot you use to locate plagiarism. My post is entirely on topic, as it is about the circumstances surrounding the mass bans.

As I previously stated, you previously both claimed the following:
1: you manually review each instances of plagiarism prior to reporting them:
2: theymos could attest to the accuracy of your bot in how often it shows false positives based on your report accuracy rating

You appear to have deleted some posts, however the two above statement conflict with eachother, and cannot both be true.

A representative of stake.com did not immidiately respond to a request for comment.

As it is known by a decent number of people, the Stake.com signature campaign is causing some problems with the amount of spam and junk posts it is generating.

I had a little bit of free time today, and decided to put this into numbers.

As some have complained about, there is no public spreadsheet with stake signature campaign participants, so it is difficult to know for sure who is in the campaign. For the purposes of this thread, I am assuming anyone who submitted an application, and is currently wearing a signature that contains "stake.com" they are in the campaign. There were only a small number of participants who it is apparent were not immidiately accepted into the campaign, and this mostly appears to be because of missed applications.  

To obtain the number of posts have been deleted written by each forum member, I used bpip.org, and the data is starting from whenever they started keeping track of the number of deleted posts, presumably approximately a year ago.

Based on the above, there are 173 participants in the stake signature campaign.

In regards to merit, the stake signature campaign has not attracted very high merit posters:
Of Stake.com signature campaign participants:
Average Merit: 9.74566474
Median Merit: 3
Number of participants with:
Above 20 Merit: 22 12.17%
Above 30 Merit: 15 8.09%
Above 50 Merit: 5 2.89%
Under 5 merit: 106 61.27%
1 or less merit: 69 39.88%

The stake.com signature campaign participants have had a lot of posts deleted:
Of Stake.com signature campaign participants:
Average number of deleted posts: 11.9017341
Median number of deleted posts: 6
Number of participants with:
Above 5 deleted posts: 87 50.28%
>10 deleted posts: 52 30.05%
> 50 Delete posts: 10 5.78%

I am not sure what the circumstances were in regards to why these people had their posts deleted. For example, if they had an active sales thread open for a long time and forgot to delete some old bumps, it might not be a huge deal to have some posts deleted.

I did not run the names of who applied for their signature campaign up against users who are currently banned, however while looking through their signature campaign thread, I saw many users who had their signature blanked out, which is an indication the person may be permabanned. I did not keep track of the number of these people, but I would estimate a solid 20-30 users had their signature blanked out who had applied to participate in the stake.com signature campaign. (I would estimate this would make up about 15% of the number of participants).

I also have many anecdotal examples of people wearing stake.com signatures either posting nonsense, or posting something that clearly indicates they have not read the thread, and their posts have not been removed as of when I read their posts.  

Based on the above, I think some, or all of the below should happen:
*Stake.com signatures should be banned/disallowed/blacklisted for a period of time -- this is based on both the high number of deleted posts spread among many wearing the stake.com signature, and the high number of people who applied for the stake.com campaign who are apparently permabanned now.
*Those who are currently wearing stake.com signatures should be cross referenced against those who are currently banned to check for ban evasion -- this is based on the high percentage of participants who have earned zero or a single merit, which I believe to be an indication of farmers.
*The merit history of the below people should be reviewed for possible abuse, based on the below numbers.
*The below people should be considered for a temp/perma ban, if they have not previously been banned for low quality posts + paid signature AND have not subsequently had a large number of their posts deleted

Needs to be reviewed for merit abuse:
Bitinity merit received: 56 | Posts deleted: 29
LUCKMCFLY merit received: 40 | Posts deleted: 51
Haunebu merit received: 34 | Posts deleted: 30
cryptjh merit received: 23 | Posts deleted: 35
alisafidel58 merit received: 26 | Posts deleted: 32
r1a2y3m4 merit received: 19 | Posts deleted: 22
CryptoBry merit received: 39 | Posts deleted: 29
jake zyrus merit received: 21 | Posts deleted: 26
Yatsan merit received: 40 | Posts deleted: 94
Adriano2010 merit received 40 | Posts deleted: 94

Needs to be reviewed for a temp/perma ban:
blockman Posts Deleted: 42
mrdeposit Posts Deleted: 45
Bitinity Posts Deleted: 29
steampunkz Posts Deleted: 54
LUCKMCFLY Posts Deleted: 51 (should be in below list if there is merit abuse)
xvids Posts Deleted: 42
Haunebu Posts Deleted: 30
Adriano2010 Posts Deleted: 56
lyks15 Posts Deleted: 93 (should be in below list if there is merit abuse)
cryptjh Posts Deleted: 35
alisafidel58 Posts Deleted: 32
Ximoandali Posts Deleted: 28
CryptoBry Posts Deleted: 29
Yatsan Posts Deleted: 94 (should be in below list if there is merit abuse)

The following people should be reviewed for a permaban, and should be permabanned unless there are some kind of special circumstances (such as many of their deleted posts are old bumps, or other posts that are not "spam"):
Catmurs Posts Deleted: 127
Akshat21 Posts Deleted: 110
okala Posts Deleted: 64
furylmz Posts Deleted: 58
Carrelmae10 Posts Deleted: 56

Deleted posts are deleted by moderators.

corrected above lists to match information from my spreadsheet

Edit: June 14// removed request to have Stake signatures blacklisted. I do think checking for ban evasion, merit abuse, and ban review for those who had many posts removed is still appropriate.

theymos can look at the edit log of the post, to see what the post looked like as of x date, and proceed accordingly.

I believe the mods will check for edited posts prior to banning someone for plagiarism. They will rule out someone being framed via edited posts. I don't think you will get banned if you are plagiarizing a single post that was made within 10 minutes of when you posted, although if someone is found to have copied many posts created within this timeframe, this will not create a loophole to prevent them from being banned.

http://loyce.club/showall/5110093.html

Thanks

---

Signatures seem to be disabled/not displayed. Is there a way to have signatures displayed? The lack of a signature is a quick indicator that someone might be banned without cross referencing their handle/UID with any kind of list.

I am mostly right leaning, although I also have somewhat of a libertarian tilt to my political views.

My deviation from right leaning political stances primarily surround those of gay marriage -- I feel that people should be free to do what they want in their own home, and although I do not like government induced incentives that reward certain life choices, such as marriage, I believe that so long as the relationship is not fraudulent (such as marrying a sibling, or someone you are with solely for financial/government benefits reasons), two people should be able to be married with few limitations. The above stance is limited to the point that lifestyle choices are not imposed upon me, meaning that I, as a man, should not be forced to use the restroom with a women, or to call a person something they are not.

For the most part, I am in favor of free trade with little regulation, which is a right leaning stance. However I will acknowledge when foreign governments put their thumb on the scales -- be it via tariffs, subsidies, or forced joint ventures of foreign firms operating domestically -- trade is not actually free, and that the domestic economy is put at an artificial disadvantage. I believe in these cases it is appropriate to tax and regulate trade in order to level the playing field for the domestic economy, and the goal should be to eventually have real free and fair trade. 

China uses technology to maintain and exert additional control over its people (social credit score, which can restrict the ability of people to travel or get a job), and to control what its people reads (the GFW, which censors unfavorable [to the Chinese government] information)

They can do anything they want, within the confines of the law.

The more important questions are, 1 in light of their recent activity, are they a "platform" hosting content published by others, or a "publisher", and 2, is their (recent) activity anti-competitive to the extent they are violating anti-trust laws.

There are many mainstream media outlets, such as bloomberg and forbes that hire independent contractors to write articles on their websites, and despite this relationship, the outlets remain to be publishers. This is true even if the editors do not direct the writers to write about certain topics.

In my experience, theymos is always open to change if a sufficient argument can be made.

I don't think getting new/different forum users is an option. My upgrades would result in different incentives for users of the trust system that will encourage people to use the trust system in a better way.