Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2019, 11:14:30 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Solutions for the spam problem?  (Read 1517 times)
Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1110



View Profile WWW
January 24, 2018, 03:41:55 PM
 #1

My goal when adding people to the Default Trust network was to help clean up the garbage posting on this forum. 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. The useless posting makes this place pretty much useless for most people and it needs to get fixed. Most of the red users I have seen are guilty of shit posting for pay. 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. 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...

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam? So far I see no reason that negative trust can not be used to stop these spammers. If I leave a neutral then they are free to continue spamming etc... I look forward to some ideas on what to do here.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1569150870
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569150870

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569150870
Reply with quote  #2

1569150870
Report to moderator
1569150870
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569150870

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569150870
Reply with quote  #2

1569150870
Report to moderator
1569150870
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569150870

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1569150870
Reply with quote  #2

1569150870
Report to moderator
Pancheng
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 1


View Profile
January 24, 2018, 04:27:43 PM
 #2

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, or they posted similar but not exactly the same topic,.. Some
Let them learn and explore.

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, the next if they does do it again then give them a red mark or the negative trust with the Right and PROPER comment,
Lastly is the warning message let's take 3 warning letter with response letter like apology letter, explanation letter, 4th warning comes with a one month account band, 5th time is 2-3 months band with a fee, then lastly permanent band,.

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....

gscplatform.io ─ ✈ ─ Navigate To The Heart Of A Revolution
▐ █▐▌ICO Presale July 1st, 2018▐▌█▐
Bachelorrd
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 1


View Profile
January 24, 2018, 04:55:17 PM
Last edit: January 24, 2018, 05:27:24 PM by Bachelorrd
 #3

Let me add my opinion if possible.

I don't have a problem with the tagging at all. My concern is the way it is being delivered. The delivery is as if arrogantly given without even investigating furthermore(correct me if I am wrong). Although some have already been proven, the credibility score of the tagging is not 100% accurate which I don't totally agree. Which makes not tagging the worst of the worst.

*This should not be an issue of where the users came from, tagging should be in a proper manner and in a way the user would understand why he/she had been tagged.


I think having a global standard for tagging might be a good idea and not just using their own standards whos to tag or not removing the thoughts of being "Biased" to his/her decision.

Fighting against Inequality!
Husires
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 40

Yellow color


View Profile
January 24, 2018, 05:01:52 PM
Merited by EcuaMobi (1)
 #4

New negative trust color:
Red color :  Scammers
Yellow color : Spammers
Lauda
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 2118



View Profile
January 24, 2018, 05:06:40 PM
 #5

New negative trust color:
Red color :  Scammers
Yellow color : Spammers
That seems like a rather *simple* change, that might just be effective enough. I'd be interested in hearing what others think about it.

Although that yellow is hard on the eyes. Maybe orange? Spammers

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
stompix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1136



View Profile
January 24, 2018, 05:08:25 PM
 #6

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....

And now can you translate it to English?

Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?

No,you were right, and I hope you will not remove The Pharmacist and actmyname from your trust list, and they will not stop either.

If I leave a neutral then they are free to continue spamming etc...
Exactly

I look forward to some ideas on what to do here.

My opinion is that we should wait to see the results after at least two or three weeks.
Let's see if the risk of getting tagged and ending up with an useless account for which they have "worked" months if not years is enough to change their attitude....in my opinion it should be

New negative trust color:
Red color :  Scammers
Yellow color : Spammers

As long as bounty campaigns managers that accept spammers will be tagged as scammers.

Have_good_times
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 52
Merit: 5


View Profile
January 24, 2018, 05:09:41 PM
Merited by hoop (1)
 #7

In my humble opinion, lots of aspects need to be addressed to prevent spam here.

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.

2. Mega threads should be locked for not giving room to spammers.

3. Most sig. campaigns enforce minimum post limits. This enforces people to write even they do not have enough points to write.

The punishment for spammers should be similar to
First offence: 7 days
Second offence: 14 days
Third offence: 30 days
Fourth: Permanent ban
Lutpin
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1815


Goodbye, Z.


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2018, 05:16:17 PM
Merited by akamit (1), MAbtc (1)
 #8

New negative trust color:
Red color :  Scammers Yellow color : Spammers
That seems like a rather *simple* change, that might just be effective enough. I'd be interested in hearing what others think about it.
Lets go one step further, don't call it trust, thats a marketplace thing. I dont necessarily distrust spammers, they are an annoyance.
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.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████



             ▄████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄
            ██                          ▄▄▄▄▄▄                           ██
           ██  ██████                ▄██████████▄     ████████████████████▀
          ██  ████████             ▄████▀   ▀████▄    ████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
         ██  ████  ████           ████▀       ▀██▀    ████
        ██  ████    ████        ▄███▀                 ████

       ██  ████      ████       ███▀                  ████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
      ██  ████        ████      ███                   ██████████████
     ██  ████          ████     ███▄                  ████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

    ██  ████████████████████    ▀████                 ████
   ██  ██████████████████████    ▀████▄        ▄██▄   ████

  ██  ████                ████     ▀████▄   ▄████▀    ████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ██  ████                  ████      ▀██████████▀     ████████████████████▄
  ██                                    ▀▀▀▀▀▀                           ██
   ▀█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 4645


Largest Merit Circle on BPIP!


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2018, 05:40:13 PM
 #9

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?
Although I wouldn't tag them by myself, I do appreciate it.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Let them learn and explore.
You can do that by reading much more than you post.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Lutpin
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1815


Goodbye, Z.


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2018, 05:43:44 PM
 #10

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.
The same could be said for the trust system.
Establish some rules about what ratings influence a post score by what factor,
in the most blunt way, create a DefaultRating account and do the whole DT stuff once again.

(I'm sure people could come up with a better idea how to handle this, just a simplified example.)


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████



             ▄████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄
            ██                          ▄▄▄▄▄▄                           ██
           ██  ██████                ▄██████████▄     ████████████████████▀
          ██  ████████             ▄████▀   ▀████▄    ████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
         ██  ████  ████           ████▀       ▀██▀    ████
        ██  ████    ████        ▄███▀                 ████

       ██  ████      ████       ███▀                  ████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
      ██  ████        ████      ███                   ██████████████
     ██  ████          ████     ███▄                  ████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

    ██  ████████████████████    ▀████                 ████
   ██  ██████████████████████    ▀████▄        ▄██▄   ████

  ██  ████                ████     ▀████▄   ▄████▀    ████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ██  ████                  ████      ▀██████████▀     ████████████████████▄
  ██                                    ▀▀▀▀▀▀                           ██
   ▀█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀
otrkid70
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 936
Merit: 1014


View Profile
January 24, 2018, 06:15:23 PM
 #11


Right now as it stands we have 3 colors to choose from when leaving Feedback.    Red:Meant For Scammers   Black Bold: Meant for a positive transaction/Sale/Service  Black: Neutral Feedback Meant for an OK transaction or a Watch out not what was agreed upon.

We should have

Red: Scammers/thieves   Red gives you a sense of Danger stay away. It's to be Expected of Scammers and thieves.

Orange: Based on suspicion. Could be used for Acct. Farmers/Sales Acts that may show Scamming activity.

Brown: A shitty Color. Could be used for Spammers or Shitposters.

Black Bold: A Good transaction sale/buy.  The way it was meant to be.

Black: Neutral an ok transaction or could have been better. Just a heads up for the next person.

Green:  For DT Members only. Based upon their Work on the forum and outing scammers/shit posters/Acct farmers.

Green DT should be reviewed and appointed or demoted By the Admins Only.

What do you think?  Just an Idea.
[/quote]


I suggested this. Dunno if anyone agrees or not.
EcuaMobi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1427


https://Ecua.Mobi


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2018, 06:17:46 PM
Merited by akamit (1)
 #12

Blazed, I really don't think we must use the Trust system to stop spammers, unless that system is changed.

New negative trust color:
Red color :  Scammers
Yellow color : Spammers
I like this idea, just definitely not yellow but another easy-to-read color.
I hope theymos writes his thoughts about this.

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.
The idea would be that campaign managers don't allow either. The distinction would be for dealers who know yellow (orange or whatever) is not related to trading trust.



Other options would be to improve the SMAS list and ask (force?) campaign managers to use it; and other ideas discussed here, but not with the current Trust system.

Scammers and spammers should be kept in 2 different groups.

Lauda
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 2118



View Profile
January 24, 2018, 06:23:47 PM
 #13

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.
No.

2. Mega threads should be locked for not giving room to spammers.
Trashed*.

3. Most sig. campaigns enforce minimum post limits. This enforces people to write even they do not have enough points to write.
No.

New negative trust color:
Red color :  Scammers Yellow color : Spammers
That seems like a rather *simple* change, that might just be effective enough. I'd be interested in hearing what others think about it.
Lets go one step further, don't call it trust, thats a marketplace thing. I dont necessarily distrust spammers, they are an annoyance.
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.
While your suggestion is more advanced, and thus likely to be more useful, you are forgetting the simplicity of implementation. Adding another option to the current trust system should not be *too hard*. Implementing a whole separate system is, and I doubt theymos is going to do it given how little time he spends on this forum as is.

-snip-
Horrible suggestion. Put that back into the garbage bin.

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1110



View Profile WWW
January 24, 2018, 06:26:16 PM
 #14

New negative trust color:
Red color :  Scammers
Yellow color : Spammers

I really like this idea (besides that yellow color). We would need Theymos to add something like this, but it would probably do the trick. I agree using "Trust" is not ideal, but its the only tool we regular users have.
EcuaMobi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1427


https://Ecua.Mobi


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2018, 06:34:33 PM
Merited by yojodojo21 (6), Lutpin (5), LoyceV (1)
 #15

Another idea which could work, something like merging the SMAS list into the trust system:

  • On every profile, besides Trust, there's an option to mark user as spammer
  • This instantly makes that user's signature invisible for the user who marked him, or add him into the ignore list, to be decided
  • If the user who marked him is on DT1 or DT2; staff; or any other list to be decided, then the marked user losses the right to wear a signature. This way, it's not up to signature managers to allow them into a campaign or not. The forum would disable the signature for him


Some details should be discussed, but that would be the idea.

LeGaulois
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1181

Bitcoin Ninja Unregulated Banker Unbanking Folks


View Profile
January 24, 2018, 06:36:38 PM
 #16

Most of the recent complaints are not really about the red trust itself, but because they can't now participate in any signature campaigns.
Giving a "spammer" tag is not going to help. People running the campaigns will just add naturally the rule "No red trust + No orange trust"
Then what? People will continue to complain because they now have a spammer tag which gives the same result of the red trust for their activity here.

Blazed wants to "be fair to everyone", it's of course ok. Do you think it's fair for us to read tons of garbages, reading 15 pages of topics to see there are only 5 good posts in? Why the forum should be fair to people who contaminate the forum. Ok for the members with broken English it's maybe rude to give them a red trust, (maybe a warning and asking to improve their English can be enough) But oh man, all the posts that give nothing more than frustration to the reader, re-using arguments that have been posted 20 times in the same topics, the people who open a thread with the sole purpose to give the opportunity to others (and their alt accounts) to post generic replies

What about closing the topics of the managers who don't care about the posts quality of their participants, to give them a warning/red trust/whatever

Lauda
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 2118



View Profile
January 24, 2018, 06:37:34 PM
 #17

...If the user who marked him is on DT1 or DT2; staff; or any other list to be decided, then the marked user losses the right to wear a signature. This way, it's not up to signature managers to allow them into a campaign or not. The forum would disable the signature for him...
...
Some details should be discussed, but that would be the idea.
But, but! *insert complain from a shitposter*: The DT1/2 members can't participate in a signature campaign themselves, or it is obvious abuse!! Roll Eyes

This is the kind of bullshit that that suggestion will receive, although I like the idea (something similar was proposed via bans a long time ago).

████████████████████████████
████████▀▀ █▀ █▀ ▀██████████
█████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
██████████▀     ▀  ▀████████
███████▀ ▀  ▄█▀▀▀█▀▀████████
██████▄      █▄  ▀▀  ▀██████
██████         ▄▄█▄ ▄ ▀█████
█████ ▄         ▀▀ ▄ ▀ █████
██████▌          █▀█▀ ▐█████
███████  ▄▌         ▄ ██████
████████▄█         ▄████████
█████████▀     ▄▄ ▄█████████
████████████████████████████
.JACKMATE'S...........
.
MAJESTIC..
████████████████████████
███████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
.
..WIN 1 BITCOIN ON EVERY PREMIER LEAGUE MATCHDAY..
████████████████████████████████
████████████▀█▀ ▀█▀█▀███████████
███████████▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████████
███████████▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████████
█████████▀▄ ██▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▄▀█████████
███████▀ ▀█████▄▄▄█▄▄▄██████████
███████▀▄████████▀  ▀█ █▐███████
███████ ▀█████████▄█▀▀██ ███████
████████ ███▀██████ ▄ ██ ███████
████████▌▐▀▄ ██████████ ▄███████
█████████▄██▌▐█████▀██ █████████
████████████▄▀▀▀▀▀▄ ▀▄██████████
████████████████████████████████
.
.JOIN US - IT'S FREE! .
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 4645


Largest Merit Circle on BPIP!


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2018, 06:45:56 PM
 #18

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.
The idea would be that campaign managers don't allow either. The distinction would be for dealers who know yellow (orange or whatever) is not related to trading trust.
If this will be enforced on all campaigns (including "Bounties"), I totally agree this is a very good solution. Your other idea to disable signatures from anyone with a DT-spammer-tag instantly takes care of this.


Giving a "spammer" tag is not going to help. People running the campaigns will just add naturally the rule "No red trust + No orange trust"
Then what? People will continue to complain because they now have a spammer tag which gives the same result of the red trust for their activity here.
True, they'll still complain, but a spammer-tag fits better than using a scammer-tag for a different purpose.

Lutpin
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1815


Goodbye, Z.


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2018, 06:53:05 PM
 #19

Another idea which could work, something like merging the SMAS list into the trust system:
  • On every profile, besides Trust, there's an option to mark user as spammer
  • If the user who marked him is on DT1 or DT2; staff; or any other list to be decided, then the marked user losses the right to wear a signature. This way, it's not up to signature managers to allow them into a campaign or not. The forum would disable the signature for him

I like this. A lot.
The limitation of SMAS right now is that it doesnt have a full impact.
People who get blacklisted can search campaigns that dont enforce SMAS rules and continue their habits there.

If the forum would get on board with an approach like this, the impact would be magnitudes higher.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████



             ▄████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄
            ██                          ▄▄▄▄▄▄                           ██
           ██  ██████                ▄██████████▄     ████████████████████▀
          ██  ████████             ▄████▀   ▀████▄    ████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
         ██  ████  ████           ████▀       ▀██▀    ████
        ██  ████    ████        ▄███▀                 ████

       ██  ████      ████       ███▀                  ████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
      ██  ████        ████      ███                   ██████████████
     ██  ████          ████     ███▄                  ████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

    ██  ████████████████████    ▀████                 ████
   ██  ██████████████████████    ▀████▄        ▄██▄   ████

  ██  ████                ████     ▀████▄   ▄████▀    ████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ██  ████                  ████      ▀██████████▀     ████████████████████▄
  ██                                    ▀▀▀▀▀▀                           ██
   ▀█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀
Cobalt9317
Copper Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 278

Offering Escrow 0.5 % fee


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2018, 07:04:18 PM
Merited by InvoKing (2)
 #20

The only solution is to limit each thread topic in Bitcoin Discussion up to 24 hours only (forum standard time), Because even if the topic is relevant/necessary the majority of it to be spammed is up to 100%.

The Orange tag will only indicate that you are a shitposter you're still labeled, and a lot of color tag will only confused the new member of this forum and it will be laborious, However if it will be implemented who cares?. The solution with the tagging is a sign petition in Meta 1 to 2 month review for doing something unnecessary in the eye of the DT.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!