Proactive fighting with spammers. Doing it the right way

[deisik]

It is beyond doubt that the quality of posts has massively gone down during the last few years primarily due to the influx of shit posters and the insane amount of spam they produce. It is no secret either that most (if not all) users heavily spamming here are spamming because they are being paid by the signature campaigns they are enrolled in. As I see it, banning individual spammers won't help much since the advertisers these users are posting for seem not to be so much interested in the quality of posts as in the amount of exposure their ads get. So banning one spammy user may actually lead to his slot being taken by an even more spammy individual. Instead of banning individual shit posters, I suggest punishing the managers of signature campaigns these posters are enrolled in. In my opinion, a threat of, say, a monthly ban will make most if not all of the campaign managers more careful and less promiscuous in the selection of new participants for the signature campaigns they happen to manage. Obviously, the unofficial forum rules should be amended with a special section concerning campaign managers and their responsibilities...

I would like to hear your opinion as well as constructive criticism if there is any

[SaltySpitoon]

I will mention that the Staff is also having this discussion right now. The general consensus is that something needs to be done. The means of doing that is what is being discussed.

[BitHodler]

Good point where I have nothing to add beside giving a thumbs up to SFR10 for how he/she is managing the BIT.AC campaign.

A lot people that are trying to enroll there are being denied which makes SFR10 not a good guy in their eyes, but this is the best way to run a campaign.

That's how you avoid spam on a massive scale, and encourage people to up their quality to a decent level.

[poptok1]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1545652.0
It was already introduced as concept in this thread.
I'm not entirely sure what is the status of this action but one thing is certain,
it is a good idea... One thing only bothers me, unofficial  group (signature managers) holding
power... soulless creature with more influence than it can handle, may end in disaster.
(I know, I'm paranoid)

[hilariousandco]

In my opinion, a threat of, say, a monthly ban will make most if not all of the campaign managers more careful and less promiscuous in the selection of new participants for the signature campaigns they happen to manage. Obviously, the unofficial forum rules should be amended with a special section concerning campaign managers and their responsibilities...

A thread is going to stickied very soon with rules/guidelines for both managers and signature campaigners and punishments for people who run the campaigns very poorly.

[Wendigo]

Easiest way is to disable all signatures for all users and that will repel 99% of the signature spammers. No incentive = no hollow forced posts containing 100 of characters saying basically nothing. Actually I am kinda curious how the forum would look like if no signatures were allowed. I have stopped reading threads past the head post because I know what is waiting for me underneath. How much traffic would the forum stand to lose if there was no more incentive for posting? 50% or more?

[hilariousandco]

Easiest way is to disable all signatures for all users and that will repel 99% of the signature spammers. No incentive = no hollow forced posts containing 100 of characters saying basically nothing.

Well, that's the only way to solve the problem for sure and I'm not against it. If these new guidelines don't work then I can't see any other option really. Campaigns that do little to nothing to monitor/curb spam after a warning will be having their signatures barred from the forum by an admin so we're halfway there to that. Hopefully campaigns will just start only accepting quality posters but for those that don't they wont be allowed to advertise here in such a way any longer.

How much traffic would the forum stand to lose if there was no more incentive for posting? 50% or more?

And that's the dilemma here. I'm sure it would be much more than 50% but 50% of people who are only here because of campaigns wont be missed, but even 'great' posters may eventually dwindle and leave as getting some money for being here is still a massive plus and will inevitably be what keeps some of them as active as they are.

[deisik]

Good point where I have nothing to add beside giving a thumbs up to SFR10 for how he/she is managing the BIT.AC campaign.

A lot people that are trying to enroll there are being denied which makes SFR10 not a good guy in their eyes, but this is the best way to run a campaign

It is easy to be a "bad" guy when the campaign you are going to manage has only a very limited number of slots available. As of now, SFR10 has to choose just 20 posters, so he can allow himself to be picky about whom to accept and whom to reject. But what would he do if the number of slots was in the hundreds? Would he be as choosy as he is right now?

Anyways, SFR10 himself said that the BIT.AC signature campaign would be his last campaign that he would manage (due to his tight job schedule)

[A!]

If signature campaign is completely disallowed I think 90 percent of posts and users will gone. And 70 to 80 percent of forums earnings will be gone too. And less salary to mods. And users with multiple accounts with no earnings would spam some affiliate on their posts or scams. They would become desperate for sure.

[Lauda]

I've already mentioned this at least once. Imagine a crime where 3 entities are involved, and only 1 always gets punished for it. That's what has been going on BTCT for a while (albeit even less effectively in 2016). What should be done is, punish everyone involved:
1) Ban the spammers themselves.
2) Ban the managers.
3) Ban the service.

If the service does not care about the spam, then it should not be allowed any kind of back-linking from BTCT period.

Easiest way is to disable all signatures for all users and that will repel 99% of the signature spammers.

That's the last and most drastic solution to this problem.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1545652.0
It was already introduced as concept in this thread.

No. That project never took off (i.e. has failed) and even some of those managers are inadequate (e.g. yahoo62278).

[A!]

I've already mentioned this at least once. Imagine a crime where 3 entities are involved, and only 1 always gets punished for it. That's what has been going on BTCT for a while (albeit even less effectively in 2016). What should be done is, punish everyone involved:
1) Ban the spammers themselves.
2) Ban the managers.
3) Ban the service.

If the service does not care about the spam, then it should not be allowed any kind of back-linking from BTCT period.

Easiest way is to disable all signatures for all users and that will repel 99% of the signature spammers.

That's the last and most drastic solution to this problem.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1545652.0
It was already introduced as concept in this thread.

No. That project never took off (i.e. has failed) and even some of those managers are inadequate (e.g. yahoo62278).

I think we need more mods and more good mods that deserve better salary. Banning by association is like North Korean Laws. Your banning the managers, but what about those members that follow the rules? They will be ruined too without doing any mistakes. This a conflict of interest on your part because you have own signature campaign firm.

[Lauda]

I think we need more mods and more good mods

False. There are enough moderators, and the report list is usually empty (at least under the global rank).

that deserve better salary.

There is no salary, there are contributions that you receive depending on how much work you've done. Anyhow, who's going to finance this salary? You?

Banning by association is like North Korean Laws. Your banning the managers, but what about those members that follow the rules? They will be ruined too without doing any mistakes.

False. They won't be ruined. Find another campaign and stop complaining about trivial side-effects.

This a conflict of interest on your part because you have own signature campaign firm.

No, there's no conflict of interest. This was created so that we can get away from campaigns filled with spammers.

[A!]

I think we need more mods and more good mods

False. There are enough moderators, and the report list is usually empty (at least under the global rank).

that deserve better salary.

There is no salary, there are contributions that you receive depending on how much work you've done. Anyhow, who's going to finance this salary? You?

Banning by association is like North Korean Laws. Your banning the managers, but what about those members that follow the rules? They will be ruined too without doing any mistakes.

False. They won't be ruined. Find another campaign and stop complaining about trivial side-effects.

This a conflict of interest on your part because you have own signature campaign firm.

No, there's no conflict of interest. This was created so that we can get away from campaigns filled with spammers.

If there are enough mods why there still many spams?

I have no money. I would if I have. But many times theymos said the forum has no problem about money. Theymos can create another rank and like donator sell it for 1 btc hundreds would buy.

Everyone will be ruin except your group of advertisers.

[redsn0w]

I think the best thing to do is _ban_ all the signature campaign, it will resolve the problem (I'm sure).

Why not try for 1 month?

[Lauda]

If there are enough mods why there still many spams?

There are plenty of moderators, however global moderators and administrators are the ones that can ban your standard signature spammer.

But many times theymos said the forum has no problem about money.

It doesn't. This does not mean that it has money to keep upping salaries.

Everyone will be ruin except your group of advertisers.

Not true. There are likely some campaigns that are acceptable. Managers would get punished only if they ignored the warnings by the staff members. Similarly, you can apply this ruling to ACE as well (if you view it as a campaign).

[A!]

I think the best thing to do is _ban_ all the signature campaign, it will resolve the problem (I'm sure).

Why not try for 1 month?

Banning signature campaigns would have big consequences to the forum and also to the bitcoin adoption as well. Signature campaign have created a micro economy for new bitcoin users who don't money to buy bitcoins. Signature campaigns is their only means to acquire bitcoins.

I predict only nerds and geeks would remains and noobs would come occasionally if bitcoin talk disable signature campaigns. Bitcointalk would be replace as number one bitcoin forum in 1-2 years. Theymos would lose his monopoly. This would give a chance for bitcoin classic to win.

I suggest a mandatory tax to every signature campaigns. I suggest for every btc spent on signature campaigns 10% would be given to the mods.
 

 

[deisik]

I've already mentioned this at least once. Imagine a crime where 3 entities are involved, and only 1 always gets punished for it. That's what has been going on BTCT for a while (albeit even less effectively in 2016). What should be done is, punish everyone involved:
1) Ban the spammers themselves.
2) Ban the managers.
3) Ban the service.

If the service does not care about the spam, then it should not be allowed any kind of back-linking from BTCT period

Even if all they care for is only exposure, this still doesn't mean that they are deliberately encouraging spammers. I think that any service would prefer good posters to spammy ones. There may be just not enough good posters currently looking for participation or the payment is too low that only compulsive spammers get attracted by such a campaign. But in any case, it is a campaign manager who first agrees to manage a signature campaign for the service and then indiscriminately accepts participants into it...

Therefore, the campaign managers are the ones who should be dealt with and where it will be most effective

[Lauda]

Even if all they care for is only exposure, this still doesn't mean that they are deliberately encouraging spammers. I think that any service would prefer good posters to spammy ones. There may be just not enough good posters currently looking for participation or the payment is too low that only compulsive spammers get attracted by such a campaign.

No, this does not hold true. There are some services, which have been contacted several times by staff members in regards to the problematic spam generated by their participants. Those services have completely ignored these messages. In addition to that, there are some that use bots to manage their campaigns which is horrible.

Therefore, the campaign managers are the ones who should be dealt with and where it will be most effective

Disagree. It's going to cause a even more complex environment with likely the same amount of spam.

[deisik]

Even if all they care for is only exposure, this still doesn't mean that they are deliberately encouraging spammers. I think that any service would prefer good posters to spammy ones. There may be just not enough good posters currently looking for participation or the payment is too low that only compulsive spammers get attracted by such a campaign.

No, this does not hold true. There are some services, which have been contacted several times by staff members in regards to the problematic spam generated by their participants. Those services have completely ignored these messages. In addition to that, there are some that use bots to manage their campaigns which is horrible

This had to be expected. How can they be held responsible for some users posting shit? Did they enroll these users themselves? No, they didn't. It is a campaign manager who accepted such posters, and he is in most cases not affiliated with the service. He typically has free choice in selecting users for the signature campaign he is going to manage, though...

Apparently, you are hitting the wrong target here (and missing the right one)

Therefore, the campaign managers are the ones who should be dealt with and where it will be most effective

Disagree. It's going to cause a even more complex environment with likely the same amount of spam.

Why so? If a few indolent managers get banned eventually, the wannabe ones will be more careful and particular in both picking up the job of a signature campaign manager and accepting new participants into the campaign

[Lauda]

This had to be expected. How can they be held responsible for some users posting shit? Did they enroll these users themselves? No, they didn't.

Do you even properly read other input before thinking about your own method again?

...there are some that use bots to manage their campaigns which is horrible.

Why so? If a few indolent managers get banned eventually, the wannabe ones will be more careful and particular in both picking up the job of a signature campaign manager and accepting new participants into the campaign

Mitigation 1: Campaigns run by bots. Mitigation 2: Sign up for campaigns outside of forum. While they keep figuring out ways to mitigate this, we've lost a lot of time and effectively accomplished only minor results.