MISTAKE: I got a negative trust for doing NOTHING!

[Daisy14]

Anyway, do have a nice day.

I have some things I will like to attend to at the moment.

[CryptoDatabase]

From your post history it looks to be clearly signature post spam. Not spammy spam, but posts clearly made to increase earnings from a signature campaign.

Getting negative trust for doing it is pretty stupid and whoever Laura is they need to rethink their situation. A more suitable warning for others would be a neutral letting future campaign managers know that the user in question wouldn't be good for their campaign.

I personally don't see your negative trust on the forum itself as I have removed Default Trust from my trust list as the majority of them are full of shit.

Lauda is staff. I dont think a neutral rating would do anything. The user wouldnt have noticed and the next campaign might be years away, in the mean time the spam continues and nothing has changed. Its like you are suggesting to do nothing.

A good signature campaign manager will do their job and inspect every account applying for their campaign. If by 'doing nothing' you are referring to campaign managers doing nothing to ensure they are committed to the job they were hired for then sure. It shouldn't be difficult to click on someones trust and read a neutral feedback. That is if the campaign manager isn't just a lazy scammer suckering people in with lies and false security.

As for Laura being staff, is there a point in this being mentioned? I really couldn't care if she was the pope. I said what I said for a reason, someones position in a forum isn't going to change my view.

[rizzlarolla]

"Daisy14" account - your situation.

You are part of "at least" 4 accounts,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=812240  Daisy14 (158)     mar 28x2,     apr 1x3,  5, 7, 9,     14, 16, 18x2, 19x2, 20x2,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=812245  Dank14 (143)      mar 28x2,     apr 1x2,  5, 7, 9x2, 14, 16, 18x2, 19x2, 20x3,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=812251  Das (340)            mar 28x2,     apr 1,     5, 7, 9,     14, 16, 18,     19x2, 20x5,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=812256  Dinki (136)          mar 28x2,     apr 1x2,  5, 7, 9,     14, 16, 18x2, 19x2, 20x4,

I did not publish your first post dates before, but as we can see all 4 accounts have near identical history's.
Are they all yours, or will you claim you "only" bought the Daisy14 account?

The post history's of "the Daisy four" accounts is clearly different from other group's of accounts "farmed" in march 2016.
Other groups of accounts (so far) listed farmed in March 2015 are clearly all connected on the same post rota - mar 25,  apr 18, 27,  may10, 12,  jun 10,  jul 4,  
Your "Daisy four" are not connected to the dominant farmer in this "post history" way.
See - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1670807.0

You are however connected to a multitude of other "farmed" accounts on the "Re: Known alts of anyone: User generated"
See this page - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1206112.msg16413465#msg16413465


"Daisy14" account - your posts.

Clearly, your systemic early posting was for 1 purpose - ranking up.
Every post you made for "Daisy14" you make posts for other accounts too.
So every post "daisy14" makes is x by how many accounts?

Your "Daist14" posts (that led to this discussion) are consistently moments apart.
You are not (previously) "chatting" as claimed, you are flying from thread to thread, 1 post and gone.
"chatting" implies continued response/debate. (please do not start "chatting" with your other accounts)

It is hard to identify spam on an individual post basis.
But look at the bigger picture and things become clearer.

------

It takes time, effort and research to make a post such as this, and i think it shows you are not as "innocent" as you make out.
Therefore, i will not be taking part in a tit for tat about weather you are spamming or not.
To me it is about value of post, of which farmed accounts have none, regardless of post "quality"

-----
edited to clarify "Daisy four" and "other groups of farmed accounts"

[shorena]

-snip-
A good signature campaign manager will do their job and inspect every account applying for their campaign.

Which takes time.

If by 'doing nothing' you are referring to campaign managers doing nothing to ensure they are committed to the job they were hired for then sure. It shouldn't be difficult to click on someones trust and read a neutral feedback. That is if the campaign manager isn't just a lazy scammer suckering people in with lies and false security.

But the lazy ones get the job, because they are cheaper. They can afford to be cheaper because they have to invest less time. The majority of campaigns with spammer problems are those where the manager is hard to reach or is barely active here.

As for Laura being staff, is there a point in this being mentioned?

Yes, I answered "whoever Laura is"

I really couldn't care if she was the pope. I said what I said for a reason, someones position in a forum isn't going to change my view.

Staff usually does not have to change someones view, they enforce the view of the admin how certain situations are to be handled. In this case however Lauda is unable to, because they are not given to powers needed to ban spammers. The trust rating is a crutch.

"Daisy14" account - your situation.

You are part of "at least" 4 accounts,
-snip-

good job.

[CryptoDatabase]

-snip-
A good signature campaign manager will do their job and inspect every account applying for their campaign.

Which takes time.

If by 'doing nothing' you are referring to campaign managers doing nothing to ensure they are committed to the job they were hired for then sure. It shouldn't be difficult to click on someones trust and read a neutral feedback. That is if the campaign manager isn't just a lazy scammer suckering people in with lies and false security.

But the lazy ones get the job, because they are cheaper. They can afford to be cheaper because they have to invest less time. The majority of campaigns with spammer problems are those where the manager is hard to reach or is barely active here.

As for Laura being staff, is there a point in this being mentioned?

Yes, I answered "whoever Laura is"

I really couldn't care if she was the pope. I said what I said for a reason, someones position in a forum isn't going to change my view.

Staff usually does not have to change someones view, they enforce the view of the admin how certain situations are to be handled. In this case however Lauda is unable to, because they are not given to powers needed to ban spammers. The trust rating is a crutch.

They give this guy a negative DT rating but don't bother with confronting the lazy campaign manager that is enabling this spam to go on. That doesn't make sense to me. It reminds me of the police going after drug users and not the ones dealing the drugs.

Clearly the OP thought it was okay as he was still being accepted in the campaign for his posts and why not? If you are doing something for a while and nothing out of the ordinary is mentioned why would you stop?

But, the thing that tops it all off and is the real reason I came to this thread. Laura is Staff, everyone knows this, and she gave him negative trust for spamming. This is her decision and it was made.

The problem here is if she felt he was spamming so badly that he deserves a negative rating then why didn't she delete his spam? It can't be as bad as she is saying, 'severe spam', if it is still there. That seems like common sense to me, how did she miss the exact reason she negged him?

In addition as I am curious, did this user receive any sort of warning beforehand about his behavior? I've been found guilty of spam myself but staff didn't come at me with negative trust they simply deleted the posts they considered spam from different threads.

Granted the posts they deleted were not spam, they were simply notices posted on different coins ANN threads letting them know that their coin was added to my database website and to let me know if stuff needed updated. It is essentially the same thing except over 100 of my posts were deleted during this time. Nothing was said to me, I said nothing. I understood from that point on that it isn't allowed on the forum.

Now that I think of it, this has happened to me twice. The HYPER dev had asked me to post copies of my announcements in his thread whenever I made them and a mod went through the entire thread almost and deleted those posts.

[Lauda]

They give this guy a negative DT rating but don't bother with confronting the lazy campaign manager that is enabling this spam to go on. That doesn't make sense to me.

False assumption. I've been contacting several managers and campaigns regarding this issues. Some of us are also working on another method of combating spam.

The problem here is if she felt he was spamming so badly that he deserves a negative rating then why didn't she delete his spam?

I can't delete it. Even if I could, it would have little effect. It is pretty impossible to clean up after every spammer.

In addition as I am curious, did this user receive any sort of warning beforehand about his behavior? I've been found guilty of spam myself but staff didn't come at me with negative trust they simply deleted the posts they considered spam from different threads.

No. This isn't an action from a staff member, but rather a member of the default trust system. Those are not necessarily connected.
P.S. Look at the findings from rizzarolla.

[shorena]

-snip-
They give this guy a negative DT rating but don't bother with confronting the lazy campaign manager that is enabling this spam to go on. That doesn't make sense to me. It reminds me of the police going after drug users and not the ones dealing the drugs.

Again, I dont agree with this method either and talked to Lauda directly about that as well. I prefer going after the managers and its what I and others will do in the future.

Clearly the OP thought it was okay as he was still being accepted in the campaign for his posts and why not? If you are doing something for a while and nothing out of the ordinary is mentioned why would you stop?

Did you miss the post by rizzlarolla? I think the OP tried to make it look like this, but does know very well whats wrong.

But, the thing that tops it all off and is the real reason I came to this thread. Laura is Staff, everyone knows this, and she gave him negative trust for spamming. This is her decision and it was made.

The problem here is if she felt he was spamming so badly that he deserves a negative rating then why didn't she delete his spam?

Lauda cant, as I said earlier they are lacking the required powers. Lauda is also a person high enough on the default trust network to matter. Thus this alternative approach. Id prefer this was not needed, but this requires action by one of the admins.

It can't be as bad as she is saying, 'severe spam', if it is still there. That seems like common sense to me, how did she miss the exact reason she negged him?

In addition as I am curious, did this user receive any sort of warning beforehand about his behavior? I've been found guilty of spam myself but staff didn't come at me with negative trust they simply deleted the posts they considered spam from different threads.

Granted the posts they deleted were not spam, they were simply notices posted on different coins ANN threads letting them know that their coin was added to my database website and to let me know if stuff needed updated. It is essentially the same thing except over 100 of my posts were deleted during this time. Nothing was said to me, I said nothing. I understood from that point on that it isn't allowed on the forum.

The normal warning for spam is a 7 day ban.

[Daisy14]

I think the OP tried to make it look like this, but does know very well whats wrong.

I do not quite understand what you mean by that sentence.
What exactly is wrong in chatting with people when nobody ever complained that I asked for anything?

Your "Daist14" posts (that led to this discussion) are consistently moments apart.
You are not (previously) "chatting" as claimed, you are flying from thread to thread, 1 post and gone.
"chatting" implies continued response/debate. (please do not start "chatting" with your other accounts)

I had to move from thread to thread because when you are in a signature campaign, you try to cover as many sections as you possibly can and you can't tell me it's wrong to do so.

I got this quote from Meta.
Topic: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

I have not broken the rule on this forum by having multiple accounts. MPREP who is ALSO A STAFF has made this absolutely clear in Meta.

I did not buy the account since any mod can verify the password has never changed.

So why is Lauda picking this up?


Attacking someone for multiple accounts is AGAINST the official rules of this forum as stated by MPREP himself, please remove the negative trusts. I did not try to scam anyone.

[CryptoDatabase]

The novel begins,

False assumption. I've been contacting several managers and campaigns regarding this issues. Some of us are also working on another method of combating spam.

Forcing campaign managers to not help promote spam would be the best place to start. Nip the problem in the bud and a lot of spam will go away. If a campaign manager refuses to abide by the forum rules then giving them negative trust would be well deserved, a good start, and would serve as a reminder to other managers to follow the rules set forth by the forum regardless of how little they agree to get paid for the job.

I'm sure you are aware of users wanting the signature campaigns gone because of the spam reason but something like the above, in my opinion, would help legitimize signature campaigns, make users happier, and create less work for the mods and staff later on.

I can't delete it. Even if I could, it would have little effect. It is pretty impossible to clean up after every spammer.

As staff they should allow you to be able to do these basic things at least.

No. This isn't an action from a staff member, but rather a member of the default trust system. Those are not necessarily connected.
P.S. Look at the findings from rizzarolla.

Yes, I mentioned part of this in my first post. His entire post history is blatantly spam from the moment he created that account.

Again, I dont agree with this method either and talked to Lauda directly about that as well. I prefer going after the managers and its what I and others will do in the future.

After reading through more of his posts I actually agree now with the negative trust he received due to him doing this in the past, getting banned, and then bragging about it on this new spam account.

Did you miss the post by rizzlarolla? I think the OP tried to make it look like this, but does know very well whats wrong.

I didn't miss it no, the first thing I posted in this thread was about his post history just being spam. That was more in reference to nothing being done to him so he just keeps on doing it. Once you notice that all of his post history is just spam preparing for signature campaigns and spam continuing once he was accepted it is easy to determine that he has more than one account used for this purpose and is a repeat offender.

I'm just a lazy person really so I didn't bother actually looking for them. That and I haven't had any sleep and it is now 1:30 pm for me lol.

Lauda cant, as I said earlier they are lacking the required powers. Lauda is also a person high enough on the default trust network to matter. Thus this alternative approach. Id prefer this was not needed, but this requires action by one of the admins.

This is something they should consider changing.

The normal warning for spam is a 7 day ban.

Yes and he has received this warning at least once on another account that I saw in my search of his posts.

I have not broken the rule on this forum by having multiple accounts. MPREP who is ALSO A STAFF has made this absolutely clear in Meta.

I did not buy the account since any mod can verify the password has never changed.

So why is Lauda picking this up?

You are a blatant account farmer with the sole purpose of spamming this forum for signature campaigns. Though your posts don't immediately look like spam normal people don't just post once in every topic and leave it at that. That isn't 'chatting' that is clearly posting as many times as you can for a campaign which is spam.

What is happening in this thread is how a discussion normally takes place. If you compare it to your post history it should be stick out pretty well. This isn't how people chat.

You understand full well what you are doing.

You know there is a very thin line between off-topic and on-topic sometimes. I had an account banned for seven days for making unsubstantial posts. But then I find it difficult to define what is substantial and what is not, I do not spam, so I tend to tread carefully now. Don't want to get banned again

[shorena]

-snip-
I'm just a lazy person really so I didn't bother actually looking for them. That and I haven't had any sleep and it is now 1:30 pm for me lol.

Get some sleep! The forum will still be here tomorrow.

Lauda cant, as I said earlier they are lacking the required powers. Lauda is also a person high enough on the default trust network to matter. Thus this alternative approach. Id prefer this was not needed, but this requires action by one of the admins.

This is something they should consider changing.

I agree. Either lower ranked mods need more power or there need to be more higher ranked mods/admins. I can understand if admins are preoccupied with more important things than spam, but it hurts the forum. IIRC the new forum will be more efficient for the staff to handle things, but at the pace its going we cant wait that long.

[actmyname]

I got this quote from Meta.
Topic: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

I have not broken the rule on this forum by having multiple accounts. MPREP who is ALSO A STAFF has made this absolutely clear in Meta.

I did not buy the account since any mod can verify the password has never changed.

So why is Lauda picking this up?


Attacking someone for multiple accounts is AGAINST the official rules of this forum as stated by MPREP himself, please remove the negative trusts. I did not try to scam anyone.

Since when was negative feedback based on the rules of the forum? Just because Lauda put negative feedback on your profile doesn't mean that you directly broke a forum rule. Their negative had nothing to do with the forum rules, and if you in fact did break a rule, then you would be banned. These past statements only apply to your response about multiple accounts.

However, you have been spamming. That is both frowned upon and a bannable offence.

1. No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads. [1][e]

2. No off-topic posts.

These are the first two rules mprep stated. How come in your posts prior to this thread, you only used one line to reply to those threads, which were absolutely worthless?

Examples:

We will see how far it will go. I saw their advert on bitcointalk but I'm low on cash at the moment so I can't invest.

Altcoins are mainly useful for trading purposes, and they have been worthwhile thus far.

This is reply #21 and has little to do with even answering the original question.

Keep up the good work, I see you guys have gained general acceptance on this forum

Was that a necessary post?


And please tell me how you're able to post 4 posts within 4 minutes and keep them constructive. (That's a rate of one per minute! You still have to find the post, then think about what to reply!)

Example 1: Archive
Example 2: Archive

[The Sceptical Chymist]

OP, what you have to understand is that the standards for quality of posting here are extremely high.  What you've been doing isn't spamming per say, but shitposting.  That's frowned upon everywhere, but on this forum--and especially when you're in a signature campaign--it's an infraction.  It can get you banned from campaigns, red trust, you name it.

You've seen forms, I'm sure, where most of the posts are +1's, "agree", LOL, emoticons, etc. etc.  Most of the page on any given thread is taken up by users' signatures.  It's bullshit.  Here we don't have that, and it's a good thing. 

Take the advice above:  1) Read threads, and 2) Don't shitpost, and 3) Ask Lauda to remove the rating in a few months.

[TwitchySeal]

Since when was negative feedback based on the rules of the forum? Just because Lauda put negative feedback on your profile doesn't mean that you directly broke a forum rule. Their negative had nothing to do with the forum rules, and if you in fact did break a rule, then you would be banned. These past statements only apply to your response about multiple accounts.

+1
Isn't
Trust System:Forum Rules (on btctalk)
similar to
Religion:Government (in america)?