Ban spammers from having a signature

[Your Point Is Invalid]

I have a good idea, instead of banning sig spammers in the new forum, we put a lock on their signatures,
what do you think?

[1714132997]

1714132997

[mexicantarget]

Just.. "Your Point Is Invalid".

lol.

I think it wont happen.

[mark coins]

I have a good idea, instead of banning sig spammers in the new forum, we put a lock on their signatures,
what do you think?

ban is better for spammers, heavier punishment is needed and if they dont want their account to be permanently banned then they should improve their posting quality.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

For most of them, the two things would essentially be the same with the exception that an account with a signature restriction might be able to be resold.  I don't think this is a horrible idea at all, as spamming is one of the bct offenses that do get enforced.  It would give the person much less incentive to spam, right?

[Your Point Is Invalid]

I have a good idea, instead of banning sig spammers in the new forum, we put a lock on their signatures,
what do you think?

ban is better for spammers, heavier punishment is needed and if they dont want their account to be permanently banned then they should improve their posting quality.

If mods see a marked improvement, they can re-enable signatures and the account wont go to waste

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I have a good idea, instead of banning sig spammers in the new forum, we put a lock on their signatures,
what do you think?

ban is better for spammers, heavier punishment is needed and if they dont want their account to be permanently banned then they should improve their posting quality.

If mods see a marked improvement, they can re-enable signatures and the account wont go to waste

You left me neutral feedback saying I have low quality posts after reading my post here?  Well enjoy yours, you cocksucker.  You might not like sig campaigns or who knows what, but you're not one to judge me, bro. 

Would be nice if in addition to being able to suspend signatures, staff could fix the trust system here.  But that's another story.

[--Encrypted--]

this will most likely not happen because other rule-breakers without sig ad will get harsher punishment. also I don't see how this is better than temp-ban in terms of teaching them a lesson.

[Lauda]

this will most likely not happen because other rule-breakers without sig ad will get harsher punishment. also I don't see how this is better than temp-ban in terms of teaching them a lesson.

Instead of giving them a temporary ban, you remove their signature permanently. The problem resolves itself, their account becomes effectively useless in regards to signature campaigns. This seems much better than the current way of handling things.

ban is better for spammers, heavier punishment is needed and if they dont want their account to be permanently banned then they should improve their posting quality.

Usually a lot of them don't. They keep spamming and then switch onto their next account if the current one gets banned.

[shorena]

this will most likely not happen because other rule-breakers without sig ad will get harsher punishment. also I don't see how this is better than temp-ban in terms of teaching them a lesson.

Instead of giving them a temporary ban, you remove their signature permanently. The problem resolves itself, their account becomes effectively useless in regards to signature campaigns. This seems much better than the current way of handling things.

ban is better for spammers, heavier punishment is needed and if they dont want their account to be permanently banned then they should improve their posting quality.

Usually a lot of them don't. They keep spamming and then switch onto their next account if the current one gets banned.

If they keep spamming, how is removing the signature a solution though? If the problem is spam the solution is to stop the spam. The incentive might be the signature but its hard to tell in advance. Maybe it can be an additional option to remove the signature. E.g. short period ban (3 days), followed by a slightly longer (7 days) removal of the signature. That way you can see if they just wait the 7 days or actually want to contribute w/o getting paid for it.

[Lauda]

If they keep spamming, how is removing the signature a solution though? If the problem is spam the solution is to stop the spam. The incentive might be the signature but its hard to tell in advance. Maybe it can be an additional option to remove the signature. E.g. short period ban (3 days), followed by a slightly longer (7 days) removal of the signature. That way you can see if they just wait the 7 days or actually want to contribute w/o getting paid for it.

I'm talking about signature spammers in particular. In 99% of the cases the incentive is the paid signature. Now what you're suggesting seems acceptable to me. However, you're a bit soft. I'd go with a 3d ban followed by 30d removal of signature. It should not only be a 'test' to see whether they are going to continue posting in the period, but rather a punishment as well.

[shorena]

If they keep spamming, how is removing the signature a solution though? If the problem is spam the solution is to stop the spam. The incentive might be the signature but its hard to tell in advance. Maybe it can be an additional option to remove the signature. E.g. short period ban (3 days), followed by a slightly longer (7 days) removal of the signature. That way you can see if they just wait the 7 days or actually want to contribute w/o getting paid for it.

I'm talking about signature spammers in particular. In 99% of the cases the incentive is the paid signature. Now what you're suggesting seems acceptable to me. However, you're a bit soft. I'd go with a 3d ban followed by 30d removal of signature. It should not only be a 'test' to see whether they are going to continue posting in the period, but rather a punishment as well.

Well the exact time frames should be determined by staff, but I think the idea of a mixed consequence to spam is good. Its not as hard to those that actually didnt know any better and want to improve and at the same time harder to those that only do it for the satoshi, because it removes the "I didnt do it for the signature" argument.

[minifrij]

I can't say I'm that sure about the effectiveness of this. Let's take one of the most notorious campaigns for spam as an example, YoBit. A large amount of members removed from that campaign are below 'Member' rank (AFAIK). It is not difficult to get the potential activity for an account to that level, especially if said spammer is managing several accounts at the same time.
Due to this, I don't think that this would be too much of a problem for people dedicated to spamming due to their ability to switch accounts should a negative repercussion happen to one. This would be even less of a problem if the implementation included staged punishments (3 days, 7 days etc) as if one account had their signature removed they could move to another account, then move back once said other account account had their signature removed.

[Lauda]

I can't say I'm that sure about the effectiveness of this. Let's take one of the most notorious campaigns for spam as an example, YoBit. A large amount of members removed from that campaign are below 'Member' rank (AFAIK). It is not difficult to get the potential activity for an account to that level, especially if said spammer is managing several accounts at the same time.
Due to this, I don't think that this would be too much of a problem for people dedicated to spamming due to their ability to switch accounts should a negative repercussion happen to one. This would be even less of a problem if the implementation included staged punishments (3 days, 7 days etc) as if one account had their signature removed they could move to another account, then move back once said other account account had their signature removed.

I think you haven't really thought about the bigger picture here. You're working under the assumptions that everyone has multiple accounts to spam from (these are usually identified by staff members though). Let's assume that a person has two accounts of which one is a rank that is not sufficient for the sig. campaign. His main account gets banned for spamming; there will be a time period where they either wait out their ban or wait for their other account to rank up so that it can join a campaign. Additionally what should be implemented is that at the second warning (i.e. ban; after this one you often permanently banned) the signature would get removed permanently from the account.
This would be more effective on members of higher ranks though. It is still better than doing nothing as there will never be a perfect solution to this problem aside from banning signature campaigns.

[minifrij]

You're working under the assumptions that everyone has multiple accounts to spam from (these are usually identified by staff members though).

If someone were dedicated enough this could happen easily, I may just be overthinking it however. I realize these accounts are usually found by Staff rather quickly, though there are always exceptions.

Let's assume that a person has two accounts of which one is a rank that is not sufficient for the sig. campaign. His main account gets banned for spamming; there will be a time period where they either wait out their ban or wait for their other account to rank up so that it can join a campaign.

I was more assuming along the lines of said user having a backlog of accounts with potential activity, therefore ranking up will not be a problem. Posting once or twice per two week interval would not be difficult in order to build such a backlog of potential activity for the future. Posting a larger amount in the future to upgrade the account's rank to 'Jr. Member' in order to join YoBit, for example, would not require too much effort on the user's part either.

Additionally what should be implemented is that at the second warning (i.e. ban; after this one you often permanently banned) the signature would get removed permanently from the account.

Absolutely, that would solve a lot of the problems I was trying to outline. If this were to work it would have to be nothing more than a warning, and it would have to be strict.

This would be more effective on members of higher ranks though.

Yes, however it seems to be fairly rare that a higher ranked account is banned due to signature spam (unless it was sold recently). If this were the case and it was used to mainly pinpoint higher ranked accounts, I think it would be a waste of time implementing this for perhaps the same outcome as a simple PM.

as there will never be a perfect solution to this problem aside from banning signature campaigns.

At least not one which wouldn't require all staff to be extremely active/more staff to be taken on.

[redsn0w]

I think it would work.... if they are not allowed to 'wear' a signature I'm sure they will stop to spam.

[FruitsBasket]

I have a good idea, instead of banning sig spammers in the new forum, we put a lock on their signatures,
what do you think?

ban is better for spammers, heavier punishment is needed and if they dont want their account to be permanently banned then they should improve their posting quality.

If mods see a marked improvement, they can re-enable signatures and the account wont go to waste

The mods on here are all already very busy, if they also get to do that then the mods will have less time for other things.

[Lauda]

The mods on here are all already very busy, if they also get to do that then the mods will have less time for other things.

Actually we are not. You assume this but I disagree with it. Most of the time my report list is empty; maybe there is too much workload for some specific sections but as far as patrollers are concerned there is none. I could easily take on a 2x increase in reports.

I realize these accounts are usually found by Staff rather quickly, though there are always exceptions.

We don't need to concern ourselves with the 1% if we could reduce the spam amount by 99%.

I was more assuming along the lines of said user having a backlog of accounts with potential activity, therefore ranking up will not be a problem.

This makes it very easy to identify a spammer from my perspective.

Absolutely, that would solve a lot of the problems I was trying to outline. If this were to work it would have to be nothing more than a warning, and it would have to be strict.

I'm very strict about this. I think that the duration of the first signature removal should be 1 month and the second one either 6 months or permanent.

At least not one which wouldn't require all staff to be extremely active/more staff to be taken on.

This one doesn't require much more work; you just add an additional 'punishment' and evaluate the member the next time that he becomes suspicious.

[mexxer-2]

The mods on here are all already very busy, if they also get to do that then the mods will have less time for other things.

Actually we are not. You assume this but I disagree with it. Most of the time my report list is empty; maybe there is too much workload for some specific sections but as far as patrollers are concerned there is none. I could easily take on a 2x increase in reports.

You up for a challenge?  , running one with sho currently could easily take another one.


As for the topic at hand I believe, a change in feedback system/the trust system as we know it to include sig spammers would be more feasible and effective than banning one's signature. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[StratusOakmont]

I have a good idea, instead of banning sig spammers in the new forum, we put a lock on their signatures,
what do you think?

ban is better for spammers, heavier punishment is needed and if they dont want their account to be permanently banned then they should improve their posting quality.

Well temporary ban is a better solution. To be honest I have tasted it and was really sour.
I got banned twice first one was of 14 days but the next one was 60 days. So you see if you continue out there to spam it keeps on increasing with some kinda multipliers I guess which I think is the best punishment ever for spammers here.

[Lauda]

Well temporary ban is a better solution. To be honest I have tasted it and was really sour.
I got banned twice first one was of 14 days but the next one was 60 days. So you see if you continue out there to spam it keeps on increasing with some kinda multipliers I guess which I think is the best punishment ever for spammers here.

It is not sufficient. You might be an example of a person who has improved (I haven't looked into you), but most don't. Also a lot of spammers have additional accounts from where they spam. We are not talking about replacing temporary bans but rather adding a removal of the signature to it. It could be pretty simple if implemented in the new forum

As for the topic at hand I believe, a change in feedback system/the trust system as we know it to include sig spammers would be more feasible and effective than banning one's signature. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As in what? Community members leaving opinions about other users (aside from a trust score)?

You up for a challenge?   , running one with sho currently could easily take another one.

[mexxer-2]

As for the topic at hand I believe, a change in feedback system/the trust system as we know it to include sig spammers would be more feasible and effective than banning one's signature. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As in what? Community members leaving opinions about other users (aside from a trust score)?

Staff given the ability to have a separate "trust" system, that should be a visible enough to let the campaign managers/runners know that they shouldn't accept the "person"/account. Or another system might be, an implementation of "DefaultIgnoreList" where if enough staff members think a participant shouldn't be running around with a signature, they can place them on the ignore list of everyone, with the option of members being able to manually remove them(which ofc only a few do even with DefaultTrust)

[FruitsBasket]

The mods on here are all already very busy, if they also get to do that then the mods will have less time for other things.

Actually we are not. You assume this but I disagree with it. Most of the time my report list is empty; maybe there is too much workload for some specific sections but as far as patrollers are concerned there is none. I could easily take on a 2x increase in reports.

I realize these accounts are usually found by Staff rather quickly, though there are always exceptions.

We don't need to concern ourselves with the 1% if we could reduce the spam amount by 99%.

I was more assuming along the lines of said user having a backlog of accounts with potential activity, therefore ranking up will not be a problem.

This makes it very easy to identify a spammer from my perspective.

Absolutely, that would solve a lot of the problems I was trying to outline. If this were to work it would have to be nothing more than a warning, and it would have to be strict.

I'm very strict about this. I think that the duration of the first signature removal should be 1 month and the second one either 6 months or permanent.

At least not one which wouldn't require all staff to be extremely active/more staff to be taken on.

This one doesn't require much more work; you just add an additional 'punishment' and evaluate the member the next time that he becomes suspicious.

Then I think you are a lucky moderator because others have said that they get many reports.

[mexxer-2]

Then I think you are a lucky moderator because others have said that they get many reports.

Humans do a thing called bragging , just FYI

[Lauda]

Then I think you are a lucky moderator because others have said that they get many reports.

It doesn't work like that. All patrollers see the same reports (if you exclude specific sections that they moderate, but we are not talking about the rank moderator).

Staff given the ability to have a separate "trust" system, that should be a visible enough to let the campaign managers/runners know that they shouldn't accept the "person"/account. Or another system might be, an implementation of "DefaultIgnoreList" where if enough staff members think a participant shouldn't be running around with a signature, they can place them on the ignore list of everyone, with the option of members being able to manually remove them(which ofc only a few do even with DefaultTrust)

I don't think that theymos would implement another type of system though. However it would be nice if staff members could vote on specific members and once a certain threshold is reached their signature would automatically get removed (decentralized moderation anyone?). I don't think 'placing on the ignore list of everyone' is a good idea at all, rather a bad one.

Humans do a thing called bragging , just FYI

You mean the 'others'? I'd be glad to take on their reports though. As I've previously stated, there are more than enough staff members, but there could be an imbalance in the workload.

[mexxer-2]

Staff given the ability to have a separate "trust" system, that should be a visible enough to let the campaign managers/runners know that they shouldn't accept the "person"/account. Or another system might be, an implementation of "DefaultIgnoreList" where if enough staff members think a participant shouldn't be running around with a signature, they can place them on the ignore list of everyone, with the option of members being able to manually remove them(which ofc only a few do even with DefaultTrust)

I don't think 'placing on the ignore list of everyone' is a good idea at all, rather a bad one.

Hey, we have people we have to trust by default and see how's that working out. Not everyone is going to have access to "DefaultIgnore"(if put in place) obviously.

[onlinedragon]

Why not change your rank to 'spammer' so you have to start over and improve first your post quality before you can signup again for a new campaign.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

Why not change your rank to 'spammer' so you have to start over and improve first your post quality before you can signup again for a new campaign.

there will be multiple user groups in the new forum, this would be a good addition