shorena
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1499
No I dont escrow anymore.
|
|
November 09, 2016, 10:44:14 AM |
|
-snip- Not pointless at all. The perma banned are the most important to me. I can cross them off any list forever more. Job done. -snip- Agreed.
Its pointless in the context of fighting spam. Perma banned accounts can not spam.
|
Im not really here, its just your imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
"With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to
trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions
effortless." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
Lauda (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
November 09, 2016, 10:46:08 AM |
|
Its pointless in the context of fighting spam. Perma banned accounts can not spam.
You can easily conclude, without the need of staff intervention, whether someone is ban evading if you correlate them and their other (banned) accounts (as an example). With the current we, we already have some state of uncertainty for such. Users do not know whether someone is permanently banned, which can and has (in the past) lead to questions that are redundant. The same (primarily) applies those attempting to tackle the account farming & signature spam problem.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
LoyceV
Legendary
Online
Activity: 3304
Merit: 16596
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
|
|
November 09, 2016, 10:50:29 AM |
|
I like it (but you already know that). It seems like a normal forum feature to know which user will never talk back again. And obviously it helps the scam/alt-fighters to know which "problems" have been tackled already. Theymos has some concerns for both temporary and permanent bans (although less for the latter) which I do not necessarily need to specify here. I don't need to know which user has a temporary ban. Even if I'm talking to that person, he'll be back again later. And if someone is hunting for alts/scammers, there's also no reason to stop the search if the user will be back the next week. Then it's largely pointless. Not sure how the couple of people who are trying to find account farmers or spammers will benefit greatly from it. If an account is perma banned what does it matter to them?
It saves them time. They don't have too look into an account that has been banned already.
|
|
|
|
shorena
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1499
No I dont escrow anymore.
|
|
November 09, 2016, 11:29:18 AM |
|
Its pointless in the context of fighting spam. Perma banned accounts can not spam.
You can easily conclude, without the need of staff intervention, whether someone is ban evading if you correlate them and their other (banned) accounts (as an example). With the current we, we already have some state of uncertainty for such. Users do not know whether someone is permanently banned, which can and has (in the past) lead to questions that are redundant. The same (primarily) applies those attempting to tackle the account farming & signature spam problem. Alright, its little help when fighting spammers. Im not against a banned tag/rank btw, but maybe it should be given with the 2nd temp ban. This could discourage spammers further as it would likely get archived somewhere and make it easier for campaign managers to refuse those as participants.
|
Im not really here, its just your imagination.
|
|
|
Lauda (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
November 09, 2016, 11:42:14 AM |
|
Alright, its little help when fighting spammers. Im not against a banned tag/rank btw, but maybe it should be given with the 2nd temp ban. This could discourage spammers further as it would likely get archived somewhere and make it easier for campaign managers to refuse those as participants.
Fair point. My primary suggestion is the rank 'Banned' for those that are permanently banned. This seems to have the highest chance for possible addition to the user rank system, and implementation should be fairly trivial. I will also consider proposing 'Temporarily Banned' or 'Temp. Banned' for those serving out their secondary temporary ban afterwards.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
rizzlarolla
|
|
November 09, 2016, 12:16:06 PM |
|
Would the "banned" tag include all "nuked" accounts? (and any other method used that effectively ensures an account is never coming back, including "zombie" nuked accounts)
How many temp bans can/does an account receive before perma ban, or is this case by case?
|
|
|
|
shorena
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1499
No I dont escrow anymore.
|
|
November 09, 2016, 12:32:50 PM |
|
Would the "banned" tag include all "nuked" accounts?
Nuked accounts are perma banned, so yes. (and any other method used that effectively ensures an account is never coming back, including "zombie" nuked accounts)
How many temp bans can/does an account receive before perma ban, or is this case by case?
1st is usually a short ban as a warning, 3rd is usually perma.
|
Im not really here, its just your imagination.
|
|
|
rizzlarolla
|
|
November 10, 2016, 01:29:52 PM Last edit: November 10, 2016, 03:58:14 PM by rizzlarolla |
|
Take a look at what we (researchers) are faced with. hopefully it will help explain why a "banned" tag would be useful. and hopefully help speed up the process. this "registration snapshot" shows all consecutive accounts registered june 19 2016, over 2.5 hour period some days 2.5 hours registration period would be thousands of accounts long. (members cannot easily find this info, admin can, i did ask theymos or admin to share so all could see, they declined) u=# username activity last active
864279 invinciblerasca 0 June 19 2016 04:45:37 AM 864280 tallabdomen62 0 June 19 2016 04:50:34 AM 864281 mattizzano1 0 June 19 2016 04:52:50 AM 864282 kiichan 0 June 19 2016 05:03:06 AM 864283 faruk8954 0 June 19 2016 04:59:19 AM 864284 Saikumargadipelly 0 June 19 2016 01:05:43 PM 864285 Metatarsallysnqs 0 June 19 2016 05:06:13 AM 864286 patr0nbriza 0 June 19 2016 05:18:09 AM 864287 antiger2612 0 June 19 2016 05:51:25 AM 864288 flygirl0505 126 October 22 2016 11:11:43 AM Komodo signature 864289 jollyswamp20 0 June 19 2016 05:47:09 AM 864290 every7878 126 October 18 2016 06:57:43 AM Komodo signature 864291 swankycostume12 0 June 19 2016 05:49:25 AM 864292 pedropimienta 0 June 19 2016 05:53:32 AM 864293 johnny11011 126 October 12 2016 12:50:04 PM no signature 864294 chronus265 1 June 20 2016 07:15:12 AM 864295 jackci123 126 October 22 2016 10:45:32 AM Komodo signature 864296 roamingnode 0 June 20 2016 06:24:20 AM 864297 nanay777 126 October 12 2016 12:48:43 PM no signature 864298 fight432100 126 October 21 2016 06:28:27 AM no signature 864299 Parsonagedzet 0 June 19 2016 05:58:37 AM 864300 follow-nana 126 October 12 2016 12:45:48 PM no signature 864301 number-o 126 October 18 2016 11:00:58 AM Komodo signature 864302 bntggy928 126 October 12 2016 12:42:06 PM no signature 864303 hafid1980 0 June 19 2016 06:20:22 AM 864304 raneedy 126 October 21 2016 06:39:10 AM no signature 864305 samhar 0 June 19 2016 06:23:09 AM 864306 Impliedaxws 0 June 19 2016 06:26:12 AM 864307 benjamin1880 37 September 01 2016 06:43:22 AM no signature 864308 BTCInvestmentGroup 2 June 20 2016 07:15:13 AM 864309 christian2585 36 August 21 2016 07:14:26 PM no signature 864310 andrew3995 35 August 21 2016 07:14:38 PM no signature 864311 decryptic 0 October 29 2016 01:55:55 AM 864312 matthew1556 36 August 21 2016 07:17:17 PM no signature 864313 raspyvacancy2 0 June 19 2016 06:38:58 AM 864314 kenturion 6 June 22 2016 06:14:20 AM 864315 levelhate24 0 June 19 2016 06:49:04 AM 864316 arifshani94 0 June 19 2016 06:52:12 AM 864317 Uploadssomz 0 June 19 2016 07:06:26 AM 864318 Minnesingerlxln 0 June 19 2016 07:09:13 AM
all zero activity accounts are either spam, cover for farmers, or dormant farmed accounts. (i think mostly made by the farmer) are they going to spring to life in the future? only 3 accounts created in this period, 864294, 864308, 864314, have any chance of being "real". 2 of those last logged on within 10 minutes of each other (864294 and 864308), so don't hold your breath. are they coming back? all other accounts with activity are chinese farmed. the lower activity accounts, 35,36,37 activity, have not posted in a while, are they banned, are they coming back? the higher activity accounts, all 126, are all still active. they are farmed, chinese, common signature campaign - komodo. exactly the same chinese farm attack happens 6 hours after this one. another 11 accounts with now 126 activity. and the next day. and in previous days. (not sure exactly when this started) if i was to create a farmer list from the info here, (which i will do at some point, bit inundated atm) it would not contain any of the zero activity accounts. if account "864288 flygirl0505 (126a)" is banned, will the next account "864289 jollyswamp20 (0a)" replace it? i (or anyone else) cannot "keep watching" 900,000 accounts for activity. (goddamn, i made the list all tidy, easy to see, but it has posted a bit of a mess, sorry. looked - can't fix! fixed - thanks Loyce, mental block!) ( signiture signature - fixed i lost the plot on this one!)
|
|
|
|
Lauda (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
November 10, 2016, 03:25:24 PM |
|
There seems to be almost unanimous support for this so far. I'll leave it open for another week before I talk to theymos again. Hopefully this will see the light of day very soon.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
AgentofCoin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 11, 2016, 02:53:04 AM |
|
Alright, its little help when fighting spammers. Im not against a banned tag/rank btw, but maybe it should be given with the 2nd temp ban. This could discourage spammers further as it would likely get archived somewhere and make it easier for campaign managers to refuse those as participants.
Fair point. My primary suggestion is the rank 'Banned' for those that are permanently banned. This seems to have the highest chance for possible addition to the user rank system, and implementation should be fairly trivial. I will also consider proposing 'Temporarily Banned' or 'Temp. Banned' for those serving out their secondary temporary ban afterwards. I support the original idea for both temporary bans as well as permanent bans. Throwing out some suggestions: 1. When a forum name displays the "BANNED"/"TEMP BANNED" user rank, make the rank a link that goes to the forum rules. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0Many times I have seen noobies complain they didn't know the rules nor ever see them, especially after they have been banned. This addition would help diminish that argument further as well as help guide other users to the thread when they see that a member has a "BANNED" marking by chance within normal thread browsing. 2. What about having a ban counter (obviously for temp bans)? So for example, if you have been banned once before, you will receive a "1" in some section within your profile, but not displayed in the normal thread displays. That way Signature Campaign Admins could institute policies or auto scripts that drop or don't include users with 1 or 2 bans within their campaigns. This may create a shaming by having ban numbers and cause sig spammer to "attempt" not to spam as much, especially after their account is flagged with a "2". It may reduce spamming. 3. Make the user rank of "BANNED"/"TEMP BANNED" a different color, like Red or Orange. Just throwing these out there. I have no idea what it would take to code #2 and whether it would even be helpful in any worthwhile way.
|
I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time. Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
|
|
|
LaudaIsFucker
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
|
|
November 11, 2016, 05:26:55 AM |
|
LAUDA AND RIZZAROLLA ACTING LIKE ADMINS, BETTER YOU CREATE YOUR OWN FORUM RATHER THAN IMPLEMENTING THOSE BULLSHIT SUGGESTIONS, TRUE ADMINS DOESNT CARE ABOUT THIS PRESENT ISSUES , ONLY THE BOTH OF YOU ARE JUST TRYING HARD AND JUST SHOWING ACTS THAT EVERYBODY HATES, IF I WERE YOU,jUST FUCK YOURSELVES BOTH
|
|
|
|
shorena
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1499
No I dont escrow anymore.
|
|
November 11, 2016, 05:49:00 AM |
|
[size= 37pt][color=r ed]LAUDA AND RIZZAROLLA ACTING LIKE ADMINS, BETTER YOU CREATE YOUR OWN FORUM RATHER THAN IMPLEMENTING THOSE BULLSHIT SUGGESTIONS, TRUE ADMINS DOESNT CARE ABOUT THIS PRESENT ISSUES , ONLY THE BOTH OF YOU ARE JUST TRYING HARD AND JUST SHOWING ACTS THAT EVERYBODY HATES, IF I WERE YOU,jUST FUCK YOURSELVES BOTH[/color] [/size]
So, you are mad because they care? Interesting. If what you say is true, that none of the admins care about users abusing the forum, there will be no forum long term, because every decent person left and the spammers among eachother will just fill a database.
|
Im not really here, its just your imagination.
|
|
|
Lauda (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
November 11, 2016, 08:19:33 AM |
|
I support the original idea for both temporary bans as well as permanent bans.
I'll be happy if we get it only for permanent bans, if we get it for both then it is even better. You mean that the rank itself should be a hyperlink to the forum rules? Interesting suggestion! I'll bring this up as well (in case that theymos is not reading this thread). 2. What about having a ban counter (obviously for temp bans)?
This would actually be very useful internally, since most of the time I'm left guessing whether someone has been banned before or not. 3. Make the user rank of "BANNED"/"TEMP BANNED" a different color, like Red or Orange.
Just throwing these out there. I have no idea what it would take to code #2 and whether it would even be helpful in any worthwhile way.
Thank you for all of your suggestions (I've snipped the post so that it takes up less space). I'll surely discuss them with the admin. If what you say is true, that none of the admins care about users abusing the forum, there will be no forum long term, because every decent person left and the spammers among eachother will just fill a database.
Unfortunately this has already happen to a good extend. Decent users are posting less and less due to garbage content & input from spammers, which in return leads to them slowly visiting the forum less frequently.. -snip-
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
sheffters
Member
Offline
Activity: 115
Merit: 10
|
|
November 11, 2016, 01:07:11 PM |
|
Then it's largely pointless. Not sure how the couple of people who are trying to find account farmers or spammers will benefit greatly from it. If an account is perma banned what does it matter to them?
it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.
|
|
|
|
Lutpin
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1874
Goodbye, Z.
|
|
November 11, 2016, 01:14:25 PM |
|
it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.
It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts. Don't be surprised that some others do care, though. [size= 37pt][color=r ed]LAUDA AND RIZZAROLLA ACTING LIKE ADMINS, BETTER YOU CREATE YOUR OWN FORUM RATHER THAN IMPLEMENTING THOSE BULLSHIT SUGGESTIONS, TRUE ADMINS DOESNT CARE ABOUT THIS PRESENT ISSUES , ONLY THE BOTH OF YOU ARE JUST TRYING HARD AND JUST SHOWING ACTS THAT EVERYBODY HATES, IF I WERE YOU,jUST FUCK YOURSELVES BOTH[/color] [/size]
So, you are mad because they care? Interesting. If what you say is true, that none of the admins care about users abusing the forum, there will be no forum long term, because every decent person left and the spammers among eachother will just fill a database. People caring are the worst.
|
| | | | ███████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ | | | |
▄████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ██ ██████ ▄██████████▄ ████████████████████▀ ██ ████████ ▄████▀ ▀████▄ ████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ████ ████ ████▀ ▀██▀ ████ ██ ████ ████ ▄███▀ ████ ██ ████ ████ ███▀ ████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ██ ████ ████ ███▄ ████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ████████████████████ ▀████ ████ ██ ██████████████████████ ▀████▄ ▄██▄ ████ ██ ████ ████ ▀████▄ ▄████▀ ████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ████ ████ ▀██████████▀ ████████████████████▄ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ▀█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀ | | |
|
|
|
sheffters
Member
Offline
Activity: 115
Merit: 10
|
|
November 11, 2016, 01:16:40 PM |
|
it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.
It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts. Don't be surprised that some others do care, though. you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem?
|
|
|
|
shorena
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1499
No I dont escrow anymore.
|
|
November 11, 2016, 01:26:54 PM |
|
it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.
It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts. Don't be surprised that some others do care, though. you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem? Many farmers are barely above shitposts. They dont really contribute to a discussion, they dont help other users. They post an opinion or a copied paragraph every now and then until the account is old enough for sale. Even though there is no clear rule against account farmers, they often get banned because they are unable to keep the quality high enough. A single account with a few posts might be just someone that posts like that, if you have 100 accounts dont expect mercy.
|
Im not really here, its just your imagination.
|
|
|
BitHodler
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1179
|
|
November 11, 2016, 01:49:45 PM |
|
it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.
It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts. Don't be surprised that some others do care, though. you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem? There is no need to farm accounts when you are here just to read and take part into certain discussions. Purposes of account farmers : Selling them when they have enough activity. Enrolling them in signature campaigns. Farming giveaways. Trolling and shilling. In some cases even scamming. All above is pure negativity. Nearly all with the intention to squeeze out every penny of this forum. Having a few (2 or max 3) alt accounts is not much wrong with, but why would a regular person have hundreds of accounts in some cases? Financial benefit.
|
BSV is not the real Bcash. Bcash is the real Bcash.
|
|
|
Lauda (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
November 11, 2016, 01:53:03 PM |
|
Please. There are zero (at least obvious) cons to this idea. Even if it were not that beneficial (which I would argue that it is going to be; rizzarolla is free to explain this further), implementing it is not hard and it does no harm. you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem?
I've yet to see an account farmer that is not shitposting, talking to each other among their accounts (which is implicitly against the rule as it is spam) and such. That said, if you are not doing anything wrong, this change does not affect you.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
sheffters
Member
Offline
Activity: 115
Merit: 10
|
|
November 11, 2016, 02:00:25 PM |
|
it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.
It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts. Don't be surprised that some others do care, though. you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem? There is no need to farm accounts when you are here just to read and take part into certain discussions. Purposes of account farmers : Selling them when they have enough activity. Enrolling them in signature campaigns. Farming giveaways. Trolling and shilling. In some cases even scamming. All above is pure negativity. Nearly all with the intention to squeeze out every penny of this forum. Having a few (2 or max 3) alt accounts is not much wrong with, but why would a regular person have hundreds of accounts in some cases? Financial benefit. 1. Selling them when they have enough activity = nothing wrong with this? 2. Isn't that the point of sig campaigns? So that they are advertising the product in their signature? Farmed account or not, they assist that economy. 3. who cares. giveaways are a joke anyway. if people want to waste their time making 100 accounts for 0.0001 giveaways good luck, they will get caught. 4. Seriously... this is a reason why this economy should be destroyed? because of trolling and shilling? like i said earlier if rules are being broken they will be banned anyway 5. this is rare, the trust system is there for a reason. but it is not there for people to abuse it if the account is purchased or not. no one is guilty until proven so. these are such ridiculous reasons to destroy a healthy economy on bitcointalk, and to add a "banned" rank just to encourage the already huge egos of these wannabe moderators. Please. There are zero (at least obvious) cons to this idea. Even if it were not that beneficial (which I would argue that it is going to be; rizzarolla is free to explain this further), implementing it is not hard and it does no harm.
as I said above, it will do nothing but inflate the egos of these low esteemed wannabe mods. it's completely pointless. it serves no purpose other than that. i bet as soon as it is added it wont be long before people like The Pharmacist make threads or posts mentioning how many people they think they got "banned" and all of a sudden it will turn into a contest on who can get the most members banned. getting people banned should be because they have done something wrong, mods deal with it, end of story. not show a public ban tag, inflating their ego further, and then bragging about it around the forum.
|
|
|
|
|