Ban spammers from having a signature

[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)

[1715619778]

1715619778

[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