[SMAS] Signature Managers against Spam (light version)

[TwitchySeal]

Okay, I apologize if my line of questioning seems intrusive, but if each manager has the ability to reduce spam in their campaigns on an individual bases, what is the intent of the organization?  

Just read the thread. It is a joint effort to fight spam via a general blacklist.

Is it to gain the ability to eliminate "rogue" campaign managers, questionable services, or competitive markets?  

We can not gain such an *ability*. I have no idea what you're talking about; I'm no magician.

And, what mechanism might their be put into place that would mitigate collusive marketing practices?  

What collusive marketing practices?

And, three members who share levels of default trust do have a collusive power to implement their will via "mob rules" because their voices are more esteemed by default and the "band wagoning" nature of the trust rating system.

Yahoo is not in DT, and most of the trust ratings left by Lutpin and me are not on the same members (at this time).

What is the function of this organization: is it to reduce spam by eliminating "rogue" campaigns, or to eliminate "rogue" campaigns by disenfranchising competitive services?

1) How exactly does one "eliminate a rogue campaign" by having a general blacklist? 2) I do not even know what that means. I feel like you're implicitly trying paint the image of malicious intent behind SMAS.

Warning: Cjmoles is just posting because it's his time of month.  You won't win any arguments with him, although it's sometimes entertaining to see how far he'll go to back up his irrational nonsense.  As soon as he meets his posting quota for his signature campaign you won't hear from him for a couple weeks.  And he probably won't be that annoying until the 25 or 26th of next month when he realizes he has to make X number of posts to get his sig campaign payment.

Does SMAS have an official name for users like him?

(ps I promise not to respond to him in this thread, don't mean to derail)

[Lutpin]

but if each manager has the ability to reduce spam in their campaigns on an individual bases, what is the intent of the organization?

As of OP:

Who and what are you?
We're a community effort started by signature campaign managers. Initially, the idea came from yahoo62278.
We want to connect accross different campaigns and fight spam on this forum together. We're looking for better communication and better organisation in this matter.

Is it to gain the ability to eliminate "rogue" campaign managers, questionable services, or competitive markets?

When did SMAS go against non-participating managers? When did we attack services with campaings not managed by SMAS for the sake of gaining an advantage?
There are managers adopting to the SMAS lists who aren't a part of the current team (notaek for example uses the lists IIRC).

And, three members who share levels of default trust do have a collusive power to implement their will via "mob rules" because their voices are more esteemed by default and the "band wagoning" nature of the trust rating system.

yahoo isn't in any DT relation (and further in none to me), neither was Lauda at the point we re-activated this.
Further, the feedback system is independent from that, we're currently not using trust feedbacks in the act of SMAS.

It goes back to my original concern; What is the function of this organization: is it to reduce spam by eliminating "rogue" campaigns, or to eliminate "rogue" campaigns by disenfranchising competitive services?

Neither, we eliminate posters with low quality from our campaigns, taking their incentives to continue spamming the forum (which is currently one of it's biggest problem), the more coverage we have, the more effective we can do that and the better the reading experience for genuine forum users will become once again.
Things are still far from being good, but I think SMAS is already showing a little impact and clearly showed it's potential by now.

Does SMAS have an official name for users like him?

Part-time spammer?!

[cjmoles]

Does SMAS have an official name for users like him?

Part-time spammer?!

I don't care.  Create a category to have me blacklisted....it only re-affirms my concerns and drives home my point.  Where does it end and what mechanisms might there be put in place to prevent a potential abuse of the reputation system by means of collusion?  I agree that low quality posters clutter the forum....but potential reputation abuse has an even more volatile effect on the community.  I'm just voicing some concerns.....that's all.

[Lauda]

I don't care.  Create a category to have me blacklisted....it only re-affirms my concerns and drives home my point.  Where does it end and what mechanisms might there be put in place to prevent a potential abuse of the reputation system by means of collusion?  I agree that low quality posters clutter the forum....but potential reputation abuse has an even more volatile effect on the community.  I'm just voicing some concerns.....that's all.

You're concerns are really misdirected, i.e. have no relevance here. Why are you looking at SMAS members when there is a lot of DT members that could be doing that? Where are the mechanisms to protect against that? Lutpin is not even tagging the accounts that I am.

[Lutpin]

I don't care.  Create a category to have me blacklisted.

Would be pointless, as you're in one of the campaigns that clearly won't participate in any coordinated anti-spam effort.

Where does it end and what mechanisms might there be put in place to prevent a potential abuse of the reputation system by means of collusion?

Again, how are we using trust feedbacks in the matter of SMAS? I just don't see where DT positions could play a role here, when we don't even leave feedbacks related to SMAS.

I agree that low quality posters clutter the forum....but potential reputation abuse has an even more volatile effect on the community. 

How are we abusing our "reputation" with this? We're doing what we are allowed to do by the responsibilities given to us from advertisers upon hiring us.

I'm just voicing some concerns.....that's all.

Concerns that have been addressed in the past (as Lauda said, read the thread) or that don't hold up when thinking 5 minutes about them.

[achow101]

Are the lists on the first two posts the definitive SMAS blacklists? Is there a place where I can just retrieve a text file with just the names of all of the people on the SMAS blacklist? I am planning on including an SMAS blacklist indicator for my account pricer.

[Lauda]

Are the lists on the first two posts the definitive SMAS blacklists? Is there a place where I can just retrieve a text file with just the names of all of the people on the SMAS blacklist? I am planning on including an SMAS blacklist indicator for my account pricer.

The second post was modified in order to suit such a purpose, i.e. a general list. This is it. However, I think it needs a duplicate check as Lutpin just merged the two lists together in a quick manner.
I will handle that right now. Update: List has been handled and sorted!

[lexuz]

I don't care.  Create a category to have me blacklisted.

Would be pointless, as you're in one of the campaigns that clearly won't participate in any coordinated anti-spam effort.

Where does it end and what mechanisms might there be put in place to prevent a potential abuse of the reputation system by means of collusion?

Again, how are we using trust feedbacks in the matter of SMAS? I just don't see where DT positions could play a role here, when we don't even leave feedbacks related to SMAS.

I think this thread is enough for all campaign manager give an information and specify who will stay on ban list. doesn't need to give feedback only for against SMAS because as we know trust feedback it for build reputation.

[Lutpin]

Are the lists on the first two posts the definitive SMAS blacklists? Is there a place where I can just retrieve a text file with just the names of all of the people on the SMAS blacklist? I am planning on including an SMAS blacklist indicator for my account pricer.

Is the list in the second post alright for that purpose, or do you need it in another format?
I'm planning to keep the second post (first reply) as it is right now, a plain list of names/accounts, nothing more.
All further information has been moved into OP and will stay there.

I think this thread is enough for all campaign manager give an information and specify who will stay on ban list. doesn't need to give feedback only for against SMAS because as we know trust feedback it for build reputation.

I (aswell as Lauda and yahoo) never voiced any intentions to get active with trust feedbacks in the matter of SMAS.
If you read my posts and understand that I am arguing against those "concerns" brought up by cjm, you would realize your post is hence moot.

[pawel7777]

Interesting initiative, can't wait to see what impact will it have.

But what's the end result you're trying to achieve? Is it to create one main list ("general"?) to serve as a single point of reference for other campaign managers to use when considering applications? Or do you want maintain 3 separate lists + 'general' and 'Permanently Blacklisted' just as informative additions?

In theory it doesn't matter, you could say that each manager can choose whichever list(s) he prefers (if any), but imo, putting focus on one, main list (by clearly denoting it as 'main' and possibly moving other, supportive lists to 2nd post) will have much stronger effect, especially if you intend to take more managers on-board.

Are the lists on the first two posts the definitive SMAS blacklists? Is there a place where I can just retrieve a text file with just the names of all of the people on the SMAS blacklist? I am planning on including an SMAS blacklist indicator for my account pricer.

Will it only be an indication, or will you adjust the value of such account accordingly?

[achow101]

Is the list in the second post alright for that purpose, or do you need it in another format?
I'm planning to keep the second post (first reply) as it is right now, a plain list of names/accounts, nothing more.
All further information has been moved into OP and will stay there.

Yes, that post should work for me.

Will it only be an indication, or will you adjust the value of such account accordingly?

For now it will be an indicator. Maybe later it will effect the price.

[Lauda]

But what's the end result you're trying to achieve? Is it to create one main list ("general"?) to serve as a single point of reference for other campaign managers to use when considering applications? Or do you want maintain 3 separate lists + 'general' and 'Permanently Blacklisted' just as informative additions?

In theory it doesn't matter, you could say that each manager can choose whichever list(s) he prefers (if any), but imo, putting focus on one, main list (by clearly denoting it as 'main' and possibly moving other, supportive lists to 2nd post) will have much stronger effect, especially if you intend to take more managers on-board.

Having a singular list is most certainly going to be more effective. I do trust the judgement of the other two members, and thus their inclusions could also be considered as *my own*. The primary difference at this time is that I can not use their blacklist and add those people into my own list. I can't deny enrollment on Bitmixer, I can only ban after I've discovered that someone is a signature spammer. Therefore, my list is supplementing the others ones (yahoo's and TBA Lutpin's). I think it already has a decent impact as I've seen account traders ask whether accounts are blacklisted by SMAS or not.
The more campaigns are managed by SMAS participants, or use the SMAS blacklist the better the general environment is going to be.

[lexuz]

In theory it doesn't matter, you could say that each manager can choose whichever list(s) he prefers (if any), but imo, putting focus on one, main list (by clearly denoting it as 'main' and possibly moving other, supportive lists to 2nd post) will have much stronger effect, especially if you intend to take more managers on-board.

Yes that's the fact dude in theory the people will consider the points like or dislike to something in making decisions and it was inevitable.

I guess we need voted from other moderator for ban the account from signature campaign at least it will be fair so no one will think if after this ball rolling there will be no manipulation.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

But what's the end result you're trying to achieve? Is it to create one main list ("general"?) to serve as a single point of reference for other campaign managers to use when considering applications? Or do you want maintain 3 separate lists + 'general' and 'Permanently Blacklisted' just as informative additions?

In theory it doesn't matter, you could say that each manager can choose whichever list(s) he prefers (if any), but imo, putting focus on one, main list (by clearly denoting it as 'main' and possibly moving other, supportive lists to 2nd post) will have much stronger effect, especially if you intend to take more managers on-board.

Having a singular list is most certainly going to be more effective. I do trust the judgement of the other two members, and thus their inclusions could also be considered as *my own*. The primary difference at this time is that I can not use their blacklist and add those people into my own list. I can't deny enrollment on Bitmixer, I can only ban after I've discovered that someone is a signature spammer. Therefore, my list is supplementing the others ones (yahoo's and TBA Lutpin's). I think it already has a decent impact as I've seen account traders ask whether accounts are blacklisted by SMAS or not.
The more campaigns are managed by SMAS participants, or use the SMAS blacklist the better the general environment is going to be.

Are the accounts put on the blacklists verified by anyone independent? or can you guys just add anyone who you personally think is a spammer?

[Lauda]

Are the accounts put on the blacklists verified by anyone independent? or can you guys just add anyone who you personally think is a spammer?

Huh, why would anyone independently need to verify whom I put on my own blacklist? As a manager, you work on behalf the advertiser and have the right to deny service to anyone. If you want to use this list you either:
1) Trust our judgement and go with it.
2) Review members that you come across (from the blacklist) yourself.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

Are the accounts put on the blacklists verified by anyone independent? or can you guys just add anyone who you personally think is a spammer?

Huh, why would anyone independently need to verify what I put on my own blacklist?

The aim of the blacklist is to identify the spammers on the forum and stop them from being enrolled into most of the signature campaigns on the forum right?

[Lauda]

The aim of the blacklist is to identify the spammers on the forum and stop them from being enrolled into most of the signature campaigns on the forum right?

The blacklist is primarily aimed at helping our own campaigns, of which there are plenty ATM. Adding independent reviewing and other stuff that SMAS previously had will complicate things and probably make it *dead* again. From the previous (updated) post:

As a manager, you work on behalf the advertiser and have the right to deny service to anyone. If you want to use this list you either:
1) Trust our judgement and go with it.
2) Review members that you come across (from the blacklist) yourself.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

The aim of the blacklist is to identify the spammers on the forum and stop them from being enrolled into most of the signature campaigns on the forum right?

The blacklist is primarily aimed at helping our own campaigns, of which there are plenty ATM. Adding independent reviewing and other stuff that SMAS previously had will complicate things and probably make it *dead* again. From the previous (updated) post:

As a manager, you work on behalf the advertiser and have the right to deny service to anyone. If you want to use this list you either:
1) Trust our judgement and go with it.
2) Review members that you come across (from the blacklist) yourself.

If you guys are working for your lists to be adopted by everyone (you seem to be going for this) then i dont think its smart for a small group of like minded individuals to act as judge, jury and executioner. Just my 2 cents tho, good luck on your project

[lexuz]

Are the accounts put on the blacklists verified by anyone independent? or can you guys just add anyone who you personally think is a spammer?

Huh, why would anyone independently need to verify whom I put on my own blacklist? As a manager, you work on behalf the advertiser and have the right to deny service to anyone. If you want to use this list you either:
1) Trust our judgement and go with it.
2) Review members that you come across (from the blacklist) yourself.

Sorry i have never doubted the quality of all three of you but at least makes it all look fair because may be this is the way all three of you to make a good reputation as a campaign manager. we never know what price you get from manage a signature campaign if this still goes all of you get many an advantage from it.

[Lauda]

If you guys are working for your lists to be adopted by everyone (you seem to be going for this) then i dont think its smart for a small group of like minded individuals to act as judge, jury and executioner. Just my 2 cents tho, good luck on your project

Valid, yet unbased concerns. People do not end up on these lists because they are innocent. Besides, there is a review process (i.e. we give people a second chance) in addition to this:

2) Review members that you come across (from the blacklist) yourself.

In other words, if one is concerned with the integrity of the list and they want to use it, then it is their responsibility to review members. Besides, we can't force people to adopt the list.