a way to stop signature spammers by punishing the campaign managers

[saturn643]

I saw this over on forum.bitcoin.com in their discussion about methods of dealing with signature spammers, and I thought it would be a good idea to do over here.

Here's the idea. Instead of just punishing and banning the spammers, we should also punish and ban the people running the signature campaigns for not cracking down on and banning spammers from their campaigns. This gives them a good incentive to check the quality of their posters so that they can remove the spammers from their campaigns.

What do you guys think of this idea.

[1714614415]

1714614415

[1714614415]

1714614415

[1714614415]

1714614415

[tarsua]

I think this idea has been proposed and turned down already, what about campaigns without a real manager?
like my campaign

[bill gator]

Your idea has potential, but I think that we can come down on the signature campaign owners too hard because then this discourages campaigns to be run at all, which is helpful towards the economy of our community.

I will say however that I do like the idea of punishing them by some degree.. I think that it would make the job of signature campaign managers a million times more difficult, but it would also make signature campaigns a little more competitive as they should be.

[saturn643]

I think this idea has been proposed and turned down already,

It has? Where?

what about campaigns without a real manager?
like my campaign

What do you mean? I can see that your campaign is run by a person, who in this case is the campaign manager. The campaign manager doesn't have to be an actual campaign manager like carra23, just the person(s) who count the posts, enroll new users, and pay the users.

[botany]

I think this idea has been proposed and turned down already,

It has? Where?

It has been turned down here.

I don't think acting on campaign managers would work, they'll just stop posting here, or use anon accounts. While using anon accounts now would be a red flag for a sig campaign, it would eventually become normal and accepted, similar to how it's the norm to see a one post newbie selling a hero account.

[bitcoin revo]

It's kind of like how moderators don't delete potential scams. I doubt that they would take action against signature campaigns if they were too troublesome and caused some inconvenience. Most YoBit signature wearers have post qualities that are debatable, but good enough to dodge the ban hammer; and IMHO, YoBit is the campaign with the most spammers.

As for signature campaigns without a manager, he's talking about bots counting the posts. Bit-X, BitMixer, YoBit, and a couple others do it.

EDIT: Plus botany's reference.

[saturn643]

I think this idea has been proposed and turned down already,

It has? Where?

It has been turned down here.

I don't think acting on campaign managers would work, they'll just stop posting here, or use anon accounts. While using anon accounts now would be a red flag for a sig campaign, it would eventually become normal and accepted, similar to how it's the norm to see a one post newbie selling a hero account.

That is interesting. While I could see sig campaign managers creating new accounts, I also don't think that many people who run signature campaigns want to see their accounts get banned. A lot of them are high ranking members, people who have posted decent post quality and are very active. Most of them have some amount of positive trust. I don't think that they would want to throw away their account to run a sig campagin. I have also seen that a lot of people running sig campaigns are the official account of that company here on Bitcointalk. I don't really think they would want to trash that account as well.

Besides, wouldn't those new anon accounts get banned for ban evasion?

As for signature campaigns without a manager, he's talking about bots counting the posts. Bit-X, BitMixer, YoBit, and a couple others do it.

Even with bots, there is still a person behind them. Someone has to run it, even if a bot is doing all of the work. It would be up to that person to deal with the spammers in their campaigns.

[bitcoin revo]

Even with bots, there is still a person behind them. Someone has to run it, even if a bot is doing all of the work. It would be up to that person to deal with the spammers in their campaigns.

Believe me; as much as I'd like to believe that, YoBit is absolutely terrible at that and no matter how much to complain to them, they won't budge. I think hilariousandco sent them a PM and they ignored it.

[reyhiesa]

What about using the trust system against them instead of banning them directly? If it starts reflecting too badly on the business, they may think twice about being complacent about spammers. Using anonymous accounts to manage the campaigns wouldn't really help them this way either, since the main accounts connected with the site would be tagged as well. And it's not as harsh as banning them, so maybe it wouldn't drive them away from the forum the same way.

[saturn643]

What about using the trust system against them instead of banning them directly? If it starts reflecting too badly on the business, they may think twice about being complacent about spammers. Using anonymous accounts to manage the campaigns wouldn't really help them this way either, since the main accounts connected with the site would be tagged as well. And it's not as harsh as banning them, so maybe it wouldn't drive them away from the forum the same way.

I think it would be just as bad, even worse than banning them since a neg trusted account will appear to people as their business either scamming or just being really bad. I don't think most people even look at what the feedback is about, just that they have neg trust.

[reyhiesa]

What about using the trust system against them instead of banning them directly? If it starts reflecting too badly on the business, they may think twice about being complacent about spammers. Using anonymous accounts to manage the campaigns wouldn't really help them this way either, since the main accounts connected with the site would be tagged as well. And it's not as harsh as banning them, so maybe it wouldn't drive them away from the forum the same way.

I think it would be just as bad, even worse than banning them since a neg trusted account will appear to people as their business either scamming or just being really bad. I don't think most people even look at what the feedback is about, just that they have neg trust.

That could be the case, but a trust rating is easier to change than a ban. And it could come from someone from the community instead of the forum administration, forcing them to engage with people here. And I hope users who trust a business do it after looking at the trust ratings.

[bill gator]

I can see why this notion has been turned down, because the more I think about it's implementation the less I can see it's proper usage within reason.
We're pretty lucky that people manage these signature campaigns to the degree that they do and bring us all an opportunity to earn something for ourselves, and I don't see it being fair for punishing them for the work they do.

At best we can attempt to provide some sort of incentive to make it so the campaign managers work harder, possibly with green trust so in this sense they have something to work towards rather than scare them away from the job.

[marcotheminer]

From what I've seen, Yobit and Bitmixer are the campaigns with the most spammers.

[Slark]

Even with bots, there is still a person behind them. Someone has to run it, even if a bot is doing all of the work. It would be up to that person to deal with the spammers in their campaigns.

Believe me; as much as I'd like to believe that, YoBit is absolutely terrible at that and no matter how much to complain to them, they won't budge. I think hilariousandco sent them a PM and they ignored it.

You can't be punished for errors of others on bitcointalk so spammmy campaigns are here to stay.  Only participants can be banned not campaign itself.
All you need to do is ban some members and announce that publicly. The rest of participants will get scared.

[XinXan]

It seems like the mods and staff dont really care, every idea that is proposed they just turn it down with pretty silly explications sometimes, there are plenty of ideas that would work, punishing sig campaign managers would work. They ban spammers why not ban campaign managers that allow the spammers? Badbear explanation is just silly, honestly.

[mexxer-2]

It seems like the mods and staff dont really care, every idea that is proposed they just turn it down with pretty silly explications sometimes, there are plenty of ideas that would work, punishing sig campaign managers would work. They ban spammers why not ban campaign managers that allow the spammers? Badbear explanation is just silly, honestly.

What ideas are you pointing to exactly? Punishing campaign managers will not work for the worst two spam campaign, they just use a bot to determine how many posts should be made and even if the campaign manager accounts are given a ban they can keep paying for the shitposts outside the forum.
And anything more complicated would require more resources i.e= higher cost i.e= lower ad revenue for the site and etc.

[sirohige]

I saw this over on forum.bitcoin.com in their discussion about methods of dealing with signature spammers, and I thought it would be a good idea to do over here.

Here's the idea. Instead of just punishing and banning the spammers, we should also punish and ban the people running the signature campaigns for not cracking down on and banning spammers from their campaigns. This gives them a good incentive to check the quality of their posters so that they can remove the spammers from their campaigns.

What do you guys think of this idea.

How about your acc,,? Look at your self

[mexxer-2]

I saw this over on forum.bitcoin.com in their discussion about methods of dealing with signature spammers, and I thought it would be a good idea to do over here.

Here's the idea. Instead of just punishing and banning the spammers, we should also punish and ban the people running the signature campaigns for not cracking down on and banning spammers from their campaigns. This gives them a good incentive to check the quality of their posters so that they can remove the spammers from their campaigns.

What do you guys think of this idea.

How about your acc,,? Look at your self

For someone posting shit to claim their potential activity, you're wrong.
AFAIK OP is making constructive enough posts to not be considered a spam poster.

[sirohige]

I saw this over on forum.bitcoin.com in their discussion about methods of dealing with signature spammers, and I thought it would be a good idea to do over here.

Here's the idea. Instead of just punishing and banning the spammers, we should also punish and ban the people running the signature campaigns for not cracking down on and banning spammers from their campaigns. This gives them a good incentive to check the quality of their posters so that they can remove the spammers from their campaigns.

What do you guys think of this idea.

How about your acc,,? Look at your self

For someone posting shit to claim their potential activity, you're wrong.
AFAIK OP is making constructive enough posts to not be considered a spam poster.

Okey sorry about it

[ranochigo]

It's kind of like how moderators don't delete potential scams. I doubt that they would take action against signature campaigns if they were too troublesome and caused some inconvenience. Most YoBit signature wearers have post qualities that are debatable, but good enough to dodge the ban hammer; and IMHO, YoBit is the campaign with the most spammers.

As for signature campaigns without a manager, he's talking about bots counting the posts. Bit-X, BitMixer, YoBit, and a couple others do it.

EDIT: Plus botany's reference.

If you're going to start banning people for semi constructive posts, many would just think that the forum is limiting free speech. It isn't all about being troublesome. Trusted users can submit a list for moderators but it would have some bias-ness in it. Most signature campaign uses bot for post as there are too many users. However, some signature campaigns limit the max post or the sections. This does help the spam abit. Some signature campaign does frequent checks on the post quality which is quite good.