Recommendation "All the Sig campaign Must have (Report signature abuse) Link"

[irfan_pak10]

For the forum betterment and to protect the forum from Signature abuse, I think every signature campaign must consider to put a link in their signature about "Report signature abuse"

After seeing a LuckyBit signature I decided to made this thread, I think its a good idea. What you say?

[1713582150]

1713582150

[1713582150]

1713582150

[1713582150]

1713582150

[1713582150]

1713582150

[1713582150]

1713582150

[Quickseller]

Do you think it is a good idea for the forum to be regulating speech? Do you think it is a good idea for the forum to be regulating what kind of business agreements that people can and cannot enter into (provided they are legal)?

[hilariousandco]

You can already report it to the staff via the link and/or report it directly to the campaign manager.

[irfan_pak10]

You can already report it to the staff via the link and/or report it directly to the campaign manager.

But many people dont know about that, But when they see a link in the signature about report abuse and they are redirected to a link where they can post, i think they will surely do that.

Do you think it is a good idea for the forum to be regulating speech? Do you think it is a good idea for the forum to be regulating what kind of business agreements that people can and cannot enter into (provided they are legal)?

I saw many people who are just posting garbage, their post make no sense, just increasing their post count, don't know what they are posting.
Im just saying that Post should make a sense, should not be a senseless and garbage.

Edit: @Qickseller, Why did you voted No? I thought you are the one at the top of the list who want this, what is your opinion ?

[Xialla]

I saw many people who are just posting garbage, their post make no sense, just increasing their post count, don't know what they are posting.
Im just saying that Post should make a sense, should not be a senseless and garbage.

because majority of campaigns are paying per post and some of them don't even have weekly/monthly cap, there is actually almost impossible to avoid this behaviour of some users..only way is just disable sig. campaigns for whole board or allow only campaigns paying per period with soft min. post count..

[camelson]

I saw many people who are just posting garbage, their post make no sense, just increasing their post count, don't know what they are posting.
Im just saying that Post should make a sense, should not be a senseless and garbage.

because majority of campaigns are paying per post and some of them don't even have weekly/monthly cap, there is actually almost impossible to avoid this behaviour of some users..only way is just disable sig. campaigns for whole board or allow only campaigns paying per period with soft min. post count..

I voted yes, because i believe yes many people are doing this making senseless post, but one can reduces if they are reported to manager, and they send them a warning, "That improve your post quality", and after 5 warning he should be removed from the signature. It can reduce these senseless posts.

[botany]

For the forum betterment and to protect the forum from Signature abuse, I think every signature campaign must consider to put a link in their signature about "Report signature abuse"

After seeing a LuckyBit signature I decided to made this thread, I think its a good idea. What you say?

Signature campaigns which do care are choosy about whom they allow to sign up. Even if an explicit link is not there, you can always PM the campaign mods, apart from reporting posts to mods.

[Hexcoin]

For the forum betterment and to protect the forum from Signature abuse, I think every signature campaign must consider to put a link in their signature about "Report signature abuse"

After seeing a LuckyBit signature I decided to made this thread, I think its a good idea. What you say?

I voted no. There is already a report to moderator button in every post. If some users think that a post is really out of topic or senseless the mods will definitely delete it

[Quickseller]

Edit: @Qickseller, Why did you voted No? I thought you are the one at the top of the list who want this, what is your opinion ?

Of course I voted no. The forum has no business regulating what people are saying as long as it is somewhat coherent. By forcing people to have a report signature abuse link on any paid signature the forum would be forcing people to say something.

I think campaigns (and companies that campaigns are advertising) should do a better job of preventing people from posting useless garbage. They should be proactive in preventing people with weak posting histories from joining and when someone that is already in a campaign starts to post weak posts, they should quickly be kicked from the campaign.

Stingle doesn't even enforce all of the rules in his campaign. I PM'ed him a few weeks ago about someone who had two accounts enrolled in paid signature campaigns, one of which was in his campaign, and was due for payment in two days, and gave him blockchain evidence that was undeniable however he paid them on time and allowed them to continue participating. The person was a heavy user of luckybit.

[Twipple]

Its really pointles having it for reasons already posted. The one in luckybit also probably means no payment to the person advertising in case its true. Really doesn't concern the forum in anyway.

[NoKittyKitty]

No need.  Just PM the signature campaign manager and/or the moderators.  Problem solved, it probably can't be integrated on the SMF forum anyways, can it?

[Grand_Voyageur]

For the forum betterment and to protect the forum from Signature abuse, I think every signature campaign must consider to put a link in their signature about "Report signature abuse"

After seeing a LuckyBit signature I decided to made this thread, I think its a good idea. What you say?

I voted NO because such a "Report signature abuse" would only be a redundant duplicate of the "Report to Moderator" link. I'm used to report signature spam post with the said "Report to Moderator" link when I think to have found one of such posts, like this (quoted) one.
IMHO, a more efficient way to deal with signature spam is to have (forcefully or voluntarily) signature & avatar campaigns to pay some BTC, and/or donate campaign earnings confiscated to enrolled users violating their rules, to initiatives aimed at rewarding "good" reports of posts violating forum rules, like this one from Muhammed Zakir. This would be like applying a Pigouvian taxation on advertising campaigns for the negative externalities (spam posts) they produce.

[PolarPoint]

Report abuse link is a good idea. The report link will not stop spam entirely. At least will increase their chance of being kicked from campaigns. This will impact spammers more than having a spam post deleted by mods.

[hilariousandco]

You can already report it to the staff via the link and/or report it directly to the campaign manager.

But many people dont know about that, But when they see a link in the signature about report abuse and they are redirected to a link where they can post, i think they will surely do that.

So if they don't know about or click on the report to moderator button why would they click the other one? The admins aren't going to force campaigns to waste space in their signature when there is already a perfectly good button that does the job.

Edit: @Qickseller, Why did you voted No? I thought you are the one at the top of the list who want this, what is your opinion ?

Of course I voted no. The forum has no business regulating what people are saying as long as it is somewhat coherent. By forcing people to have a report signature abuse link on any paid signature the forum would be forcing people to say something.

I think campaigns (and companies that campaigns are advertising) should do a better job of preventing people from posting useless garbage. They should be proactive in preventing people with weak posting histories from joining and when someone that is already in a campaign starts to post weak posts, they should quickly be kicked from the campaign.

This. If campaign managers did their job and either didn't pay or accept poor posters quality would improve dramatically and spam decrease drastically. If shitposters were turned away from every campaign then they would have no choice but to improve their posts.

[galbros]

I don't think it should be required, but I do hope more signature campaign sponsors start to adopt the tactic to save themselves money.  As others have pointed out, it is the campaign sponsors that are paying for these posts, they should be VERY interested to learn about examples of spamming that is tied to their site.

[--Encrypted--]

voted no because:

You can already report it to the staff via the link and/or report it directly to the campaign manager.

But many people dont know about that, But when they see a link in the signature about report abuse and they are redirected to a link where they can post, i think they will surely do that.

I don't think so. most of them are probably new users who doesn't know the forum very well.

and I think 70% of the reports will come from users that doesn't like signature campaigns in the first place, making their decisions biased.

[everaja]

I Think individual Campaign Managers always take care of the Spam messages and don't endorse them , i have seen some campaigns not paying for full posts and users complaining them that they were not paid for their full posts and often say please count my most again i have posted "X" posts but have got only paid for "y" posts.
so from my point of view is that you(we users) can our self often report such cases to the campaign managers , i do have seen a lots of thread opened by users stating "Is that user cheating XYZ campaign".

[erikalui]

This post shouldn't be in meta as it's a suggestion for only signature campaigns and for the manages of the campaign.

I agree with the opinion though as it will help the managers to be notified of those users who are abusing their campaigns but spamming and it will be easier for users to report them. Some managers also address their PMs when they receive such reports while in case of reporting spammers, the forum already has a report button.

[hilariousandco]

This post shouldn't be in meta as it's a suggestion for only signature campaigns and for the manages of the campaign.

It's arguable, especially if he's suggesting the forum admins essentially 'force' campaigns to do this or to have a 'proper' report link in the signature (like we do for posts already).

[el kaka22]

This is already built in at the forum, as the 'Report to moderator' function and the banning system (users may banned for 14/30 days for spamming sig). As some of the signature campaigns will ban users that are banned, it is already effective.

[erikalui]

This post shouldn't be in meta as it's a suggestion for only signature campaigns and for the manages of the campaign.

It's arguable, especially if he's suggesting the forum admins essentially 'force' campaigns to do this or to have a 'proper' report link in the signature (like we do for posts already).

I don't think it would be a good idea to 'force' the campaign managers to have this feature then as in any case we can message the respective managers if we notice an abuse.

It's mainly an idea for managers and this would be like making the forum admins go 'out of the way' for these signature campaigns by making this a compulsion. The respective managers can think about adopting it though.

[botany]

Stingle doesn't even enforce all of the rules in his campaign. I PM'ed him a few weeks ago about someone who had two accounts enrolled in paid signature campaigns, one of which was in his campaign, and was due for payment in two days, and gave him blockchain evidence that was undeniable however he paid them on time and allowed them to continue participating. The person was a heavy user of luckybit.

By undeniable do you mean recent?
Sometimes, accounts get sold and that really queers thing up.

[Quickseller]

Stingle doesn't even enforce all of the rules in his campaign. I PM'ed him a few weeks ago about someone who had two accounts enrolled in paid signature campaigns, one of which was in his campaign, and was due for payment in two days, and gave him blockchain evidence that was undeniable however he paid them on time and allowed them to continue participating. The person was a heavy user of luckybit.

By undeniable do you mean recent?
Sometimes, accounts get sold and that really queers thing up.

I would need to double check, however IIRC, the two addresses that were spend linked together were addresses that were then currently receiving signature payouts.

Edit:

payment has been received everytime on time. nice campaign here. joining avatar campaign also. gimme a few minutes and ill switch avatars

this proves that yahoo62278 was in a signature campaign as of the first week of June (and it was in one in late May as well). The "1yahoo..." address is in its profile.

payment received

reapply affiliate

https://blockchain.info/tx/cc60e7acdf0404a2287e77ab0f8f4d5c40098ca8c536b930a2643791d2ebd0ae

^^^bet

1ERwwmMeM89U88hCtY8M8tAy84h1kmNZem

^^^ address

Posts:   519
Activity:   308

The address 1ERwwmMeM89U88hCtY8M8tAy84h1kmNZem is linked to the 1Yahoo.... address via https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/04b6188f73607e28/addresses

If you look at the transactions of that wallet, you will see that there are a lot of transactions to and from luckybit.it

[LFC_Bitcoin]

If anybody spams or does lots of crappy non constructive posts they get kicked off the campaign or banned so what's the issue? I'm speaking as a long term participant in the Da Dice signature & avatar campaigns. I get 100 constructive posts every week & whilst I can only speak from experience of the Da Dice campaigns....they kick anybody who has poor post quality any way.

I think maybe there should be a maximum post cap per week on all signature campaigns, limited to 150 maybe but that's it. You can't censor people.

To be honest though the worst posters/trolls I've seen on this forum are in the Bitcoin Discussion & Bitcoin Speculation threads & they're not part of signature campaigns.

[shorena]

If anybody spams or does lots of crappy non constructive posts they get kicked off the campaign or banned so what's the issue? I'm speaking as a long term participant in the Da Dice signature & avatar campaigns. I get 100 constructive posts every week & whilst I can only speak from experience of the Da Dice campaigns....they kick anybody who has poor post quality any way.

DaDice is very good in that regard. My experience with other campaigns and their managers has been different. Some do not seem to care at all, as Quickseller states with their example. Some are not even active on the forum in order to notice a possible PM in the first place.

I think maybe there should be a maximum post cap per week on all signature campaigns, limited to 150 maybe but that's it. You can't censor people.

Just because its a different interference in their freedom to do business here, its ok? Im not sure I get you. Either its not a big deal or interference by the staff is required. Besides, its hardly censorship. It would be more of a regulation regarding certain business. We already have those e.g. ponzis go into a specific section, same with faucets and possibly more in the future. Granted this regulation would directly dictate how to do business here and not only where.

To be honest though the worst posters/trolls I've seen on this forum are in the Bitcoin Discussion & Bitcoin Speculation threads & they're not part of signature campaigns.

Try politics and society.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

@shorena


I just meant if all signature campaigns had a max post cap (that they'll pay out on per week) e.g. 150 then post quality is likely to be fairly high. I'm sure nobody really wants to do over 150 a week any way really if it's not paid.

I'm not here to criticise any campaigns but some have no limit per week, I've seen several users making hundreds of posts a week.

I don't think staff need to step in on anybody at the moment but obviously if there are unlimited pay per post campaigns they're obviously more likely to be abused than Da Dice for example who pay for a max of 100 posts.

[shorena]

@shorena


I just meant if all signature campaigns had a max post cap (that they'll pay out on per week) e.g. 150 then post quality is likely to be fairly high. I'm sure nobody really wants to do over 150 a week any way really if it's not paid.

Quickseller did more than the limit in the past even though it was not paid.

I'm not here to criticise any campaigns but some have no limit per week, I've seen several users making hundreds of posts a week.

I dont think its that simple. There are very active and contributing members with a paid signature. If they make 300 constructive posts per week, why not paid them a fair price for it? IMHO limits are either an easy way to "reduce spam" without actually doing anything or just a limit on how much those running the campaign are willing to pay. It does not remove the need to check your participants.

I don't think staff need to step in on anybody at the moment but obviously if there are unlimited pay per post campaigns they're obviously more likely to be abused than Da Dice for example who pay for a max of 100 posts.

IMHO the reputation of a campaigns manager and their ability to fight spam is more important. If "it is known"[1] that a certain campaign has very strict anti spam rules and dedicated managers to enforce them, it will get avoided by those trying to game the campaign for a few (million) satoshi. If the campaign is mainly run by bots that can easily fooled by adding some bullshit at the end of each post, it will be done and mods have to step in. I have said this in the past and I will say it again, this is not something you want the staff to handle. It should be handled by campaigns and their managers. If this gets to much work for staff, they will not double the mods, they will just ban paid signatures. A ban on paid signatures in demand since I can remember by many old members.

IMHO this is a simple "get your act together you dont want a higher authority to solve this for you" situation.


[1] http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/53532811.jpg

[saddampbuh]

if you find someone's posts to be of low quality put them on ignore and you wont have to see their signature, i dont see how it affects you.

[Grand_Voyageur]

if you find someone's posts to be of low quality put them on ignore and you wont have to see their signature, i dont see how it affects you.

If you find someone publishing posts here violating forum rules - included posting low quality/pointless/uninteresting posts - while wearing a paid signature (or avatar) advertising, you should click on put a few words to describe the violation, click Submit and let  the Mods decide about it. Maybe, if you wish to be kind enough with campaign managers, you could also let them known about by PM.
IMHO, Spam affect all of us & cannot be solved just by not having a signature shown on our screens.

[Digital_Lord]

I saw many people who are just posting garbage, their post make no sense, just increasing their post count, don't know what they are posting.
Im just saying that Post should make a sense, should not be a senseless and garbage.

because majority of campaigns are paying per post and some of them don't even have weekly/monthly cap, there is actually almost impossible to avoid this behaviour of some users..only way is just disable sig. campaigns for whole board or allow only campaigns paying per period with soft min. post count..

Please, tell me more about there campaigns without limits,

OP this is a stupid idea, newbies and jr members dont have enough sig space to add this

[JLynn171]

Stingle doesn't even enforce all of the rules in his campaign. I PM'ed him a few weeks ago about someone who had two accounts enrolled in paid signature campaigns, one of which was in his campaign, and was due for payment in two days, and gave him blockchain evidence that was undeniable however he paid them on time and allowed them to continue participating. The person was a heavy user of luckybit.

By undeniable do you mean recent?
Sometimes, accounts get sold and that really queers thing up.

I would need to double check, however IIRC, the two addresses that were spend linked together were addresses that were then currently receiving signature payouts.

Edit:

payment has been received everytime on time. nice campaign here. joining avatar campaign also. gimme a few minutes and ill switch avatars

this proves that yahoo62278 was in a signature campaign as of the first week of June (and it was in one in late May as well). The "1yahoo..." address is in its profile.

payment received

reapply affiliate

https://blockchain.info/tx/cc60e7acdf0404a2287e77ab0f8f4d5c40098ca8c536b930a2643791d2ebd0ae

^^^bet

1ERwwmMeM89U88hCtY8M8tAy84h1kmNZem

^^^ address

Posts:   519
Activity:   308

The address 1ERwwmMeM89U88hCtY8M8tAy84h1kmNZem is linked to the 1Yahoo.... address via https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/04b6188f73607e28/addresses

If you look at the transactions of that wallet, you will see that there are a lot of transactions to and from luckybit.it

you should investigate a little further this is actully just  fresh address i let BC make after having coins stolen...  dunno how it would be linked yahoo besides maybe he's either given me a little btc or i've given him, we've been part of same community for 2-3 years so tx's between us is common... if you have any further questions can you please address me without blindly accusing me or atleast give me a link to  a thread you accusing me of something in via p.m. so i will atleast know about this

but the thing that puzzles me the most is how you "caught" this with proof that is umm ununderstable to me (sorry i not that "techy") but the 3-4 different poker sites which have strict rules and good security against multi accounts, and the other forums/casinos/dice/gambling sites ALL missed it... I know you have "trusted reputation" here as you are long standing member and im not the most active on this forum, but i have long standing trust over the gambling community and if you knew me at all (which i think you should before putting my name out there in a negative way especially just something you suspect but couldnt be able to prove) you would know me "Girlscout" is not yahoo

lol please let me know how me and yahoo trusting each other with a shared private key is undeniable proof? because im denying you accusations