My goal when adding people to the Default Trust network was to help clean up the garbage posting on this forum.
Thanks for stepping up, I can't deny it made me smile a bit seeing so many accounts with zero post quality suddenly complain about a trust rating they received months ago.
I understand people are all worked up over sea of red that ensued after my adding The Pharmacist and actmyname to DT2. I would love to hear some suggestions on how to make this fair for everyone.
I would love to see shitposters becoming more careful and creating better posts when they fear for red trust, but I don't have much hope of that happening.
Ultimately, I would prefer to see shitposters banned instead of tagged. I like strict rules: insubstantial posts aren't allowed, if most of a user's posts are worthless, he shouldn't be allowed to post at all. But this has been discussed in many topics, just like the suggestions to punish campaign managers who pay shitposters, but these suggestions didn't get enforced.
I have also seen some suggestions that sounded good like drop a red for a week and if they clean it up remove the red and leave a neutral.
Do you mean cleaning up their post history by asking them to delete all bad posts on their own?
I like it! Most will have to delete up to 90% or more, and after that it should be quite easy to quickly check whether they did a good job or not.
I think everyone should be able to join a campaign and earn some coins, but the spam is out of control and no one can seem to fix it so far...
I think some people just lack the capacity to type useful posts on this forum, and if their only motivation to post here is to join a campaign, it can only end in shitposting.
Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?
Although I wouldn't tag them by myself, I do appreciate it.
I look forward to some ideas on what to do here.
May I suggest to let this "experiment" run for a month, to see if it has any effect on the total number of useless posts?
And, adding to my blue text: can this be tested? If The Pharmacist and actmyname are in for it, I suggest to create a Meta thread where "red tagged shitposters" can volunteer. If needed, I'd be willing to check some post histories too.
As for newbies I like to suggest to give them a little bit freedom, like it's okay if they reply on threads with just a short message
The length of a post has nothing to do with it's quality and relevance.
or they posted similar but not exactly the same topic
Repeating the same over and over again on hundreds of pages isn't helping this forum.
Let them learn and explore.
You can do that by reading much more than you post.
But when they reach and started Jr. Member rank, and they still doing the same, atleast send a PM to inform them about their wrong doing or their repeated mistakes
It's already impossible to check posts for tens of thousands of accounts. Having to do it more than once makes it even more work. Giving up to 5 warnings as you suggested doesn't solve the spam problem.
Besides, I'm pretty sure most spammers use many different accounts. Giving them 5 different warnings on dozens of accounts is impossible. They know they create useless posts, but they don't care.
It's only a suggestion on my part, but I am so happy if some of them Can be carried out Bearcats don't like my account just to be band with out any warning or explanation....
You get a warning when some of your posts get deleted by Moderators. It's up to you what you do with that warning.
New negative trust color:
Red color : Scammers
Yellow color : Spammers
With what goal? Giving campaigns the choice to accept spammers but not scammers? That doesn't make sense, neither one should be given any incentive to post.
1. First we need to define what is spam like what types of posts will be considered as spam. A proper guideline will help many people to improve themselves.
Do you really think spammers would read them?
Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign) (by hilariousandco) give a good indication of what is expected.
2. Mega threads should be locked for not giving room to spammers.
Report them! I once quickly made
a list of 20 spam megathreads based on post histories from a certain campaign, and 14 of them are deleted now. A central thread in Meta may be good for this (just like I did for
copy/pasting).
3. Most sig. campaigns enforce minimum post limits. This enforces people to write even they do not have enough points to write.
If something can be said in 5 words, it shouldn't be extended into 20. It's okay not to get paid for all posts.
Add a second way to rate users, call it post score (or something similar), the system itself could even work the same way the trust system works (with only minor adjustments).
Might even add options to hide the post scores completely, if you do not care about that sort of governance/moderation.
Considering the number of accounts some people have, I expect this to be abused to silence people. I wouldn't mind a simple + or - to click at each post though (idea taken from Vod, who
owes me a +1), maybe with extra weight for topic starters.
