Unreasonable Account Banning, Help Please.

[Welsh]

We are currently thinking about what needs to be done, we have been discussing it since the latest influx of paid advertising spammers. The question is, do we just get more strict on spammers, or do we go as far as to disallow paid advertising, or even remove signatures.

Hopefully just having more defined rules and being more strict on spammers will be enough, however no one has come to a decision on anything, those are just ideas that are being tossed around.

It's good to hear that you are looking to do something about this. I think the only way to deal with this is too try being more strict on spammers first, if it doesn't work within a certain period of time then banning them is the only option.

The staff already have enough to do without the extra work load of dealing with hundreds of spammers. So I can see the current work force struggling to keep it under control and eventually the paid signatures will have to get banned.

[Xian01]

I know people find the signatures annoying but they can always hide them.

... says the person with the 22 point red font paid advertisement in their sig.

I suggest the forums just disallow paid signature schemes altogether.

It clutters the place up too much IMO and promotes posts with little substance.

[jackjack]

SaltySpitoon, I know that what users say won't change much your (mods) decision but I don't think being more strict would help
This will only bring more dispute, more unhappy users and more work for mods
I think that moderation rules should be as manichean as possible: either something is allowed or it's not

Even though it's late IMO, it's good to see mods about to take decisions about this problem

[SaltySpitoon]

SaltySpitoon, I know that what users say won't change much your (mods) decision but I don't think being more strict would help
This will only bring more dispute, more unhappy users and more work for mods
I think that moderation rules should be as manichean as possible: either something is allowed or it's not

Even though it's late IMO, it's good to see mods about to take decisions about this problem

Well thats kind of the thought. I think it would be preferential to allow everyone to continue doing what they are doing, and just hit the spammers harder. The problem with that is how much additional oversight it could take, which we may or may not be able to provide.

The majority of the forum rules are not black and white. They are really up to judgement by the moderator of the board. This however isn't really a problem, first because its always been this way, and second because in order for any more damage than a deleted post or two to occur, it is discussed, evidence is compiled, and appropriate actions are made by multiple parties. Mistakes are made from time to time, however with how the system is laid out, getting an unwarranted ban or worse is almost unheard of. You have to try really hard on this forum to get banned, if you haven't been warned more than a handful of times before being banned for anything other than posting malware or very obvious spamming, chances are, you aren't going to get banned if you make a bad decision and post a few things you shouldn't, you will end up with a warning.

Can moderators be an accurate judge of paid advertising spamming vs regular spamming is the question. If you are spamming because you are getting paid to, that is more severe than letting your emotions get the better of you, and spamming a few posts. If we can't tell the difference easily, then cracking down on paid advertising spammers won't work, and more drastic measures would be taken, such as not allowing paid advertising in the first place.

The goal here is to allow as much freedom as possible without letting those freedoms disrupt others.

[jackjack]

I know rules are not black and white, it's just that I fear that many people will complain a lot if you prevent them from receiving their sig money
And I don't think moderators will be wrong often, but I do think that some will cry about how you're censoring them and that full white or full black rules make censorship not credible
Hopefully I'll be proven wrong though

If we can't tell the difference easily, then cracking down on paid advertising spammers won't work, and more drastic measures would be taken, such as not allowing paid advertising in the first place.

Not sure it would be a bad thing

Also, out of curiosity, do you keep an eye on users with posts count/activity>10 (or 20 or even more)? I think that could help catching some spammers

[Welsh]

Also, out of curiosity, do you keep an eye on users with posts count/activity>10 (or 20 or even more)? I think that could help catching some spammers

I find it ridiculous when users have only been here for a month or two and they are already hitting 2000-3000 posts. I know we had a lot of spammers before the whole sig thing. But, the way they are doing it now paying per post it seems it's getting worse. Spammers are trying to hide it too. They are posting in threads which they wouldn't be interested in and don't add any value to the subject in matter. I have seen the off topic section for example be flooded with one persons name commenting on every thread. Surely, they haven't got anything to add for every single thread posted here at the forum, it's not so much they're posts are constructive because anyone can sting a few sentences together.

[dwma]

I found the weird time requirement to make your first post on here annoying. Almost to the extent I'd rather have discussions elsewhere.  Once I was past that, I'm all for the signatures though.  They promote community etc.

What about all those "reserved" posts.  Ban those guys.  Some shitcoin and 1/2 a dozen guys reserving the first page.  For what ?

 It is easy to go through a thread like that and just clean house.  Look at "ANN RES" for an example of this.

[Welsh]

I found the weird time requirement to make your first post on here annoying. Almost to the extent I'd rather have discussions elsewhere.  Once I was past that, I'm all for the signatures though.  They promote community etc.

What do you mean by it promotes community? 

[guybrushthreepwood]

What about all those "reserved" posts.  Ban those guys.  Some shitcoin and 1/2 a dozen guys reserving the first page.  For what ?

Sometimes they try sell their post on a popular coin as an advertisement. Not sure how successful they are though.

[BadBear]

I know rules are not black and white, it's just that I fear that many people will complain a lot if you prevent them from receiving their sig money
And I don't think moderators will be wrong often, but I do think that some will cry about how you're censoring them and that full white or full black rules make censorship not credible

They'll get over it.

[jackjack]

I know rules are not black and white, it's just that I fear that many people will complain a lot if you prevent them from receiving their sig money
And I don't think moderators will be wrong often, but I do think that some will cry about how you're censoring them and that full white or full black rules make censorship not credible

They'll get over it.

Maybe I wasn't clear, I'm actually worried about the forum getting spammed by these complaints, not about the whiners

[BadBear]

Oh. 
Well I find it more entertaining than another thread about avatars or whatever. I'm actually surprised it's taken this long to get a thread complaining, there have been quite a few banned so far. I guess most are too embarrassed to post, or know they don't have a leg to stand on.

[dwma]

I found the weird time requirement to make your first post on here annoying. Almost to the extent I'd rather have discussions elsewhere.  Once I was past that, I'm all for the signatures though.  They promote community etc.

What do you mean by it promotes community? 

Community in the sense that it keeps coins circulating etc by the advertisements.  I'd rather see the various projects in people's .signatures than paid advertising from just the guys who have the capital to pay for ads.  Coins are given value by services. I don't find signatures obtrusive and I'd like to think when I have a bitcoin/altcoin site, I'd be able to put it in my signature.

 Not sure about the big red fonts being allowed, etc....

[Voodah]

I'm not sure banning paid sigs will solve anything. It will just sprout in another way.

What if avatars come next? I see lots of spammer sock accounts that act as ardent defendants in specific posts/communities that would gladly wear the paid logo..

On the other hand, it is a given that spammers do make themselves notice. It's not like you can spam "on the low".

We all see them and know them. I don't know how much more work it could really amount to. It's just a matter of harsher policy imho.

[e4xit]

How about if you had an option in the account setting which allowed you to disable the display of all signatures for your user (login).

This way members who don't want to see spam , beg-addresses, signatures can turn them off themselves. No input required by moderators. All users can be happy? Hopefully it's already an option in the forum code, as I doubt bitcointalk.org would have enough money to hire someone to code such a change if not... /s

I guess in the long run, if this were an option, the # of paid sigs would naturally decrease, as advertisers realised they might not be getting as many views as they thought they were...

[jackjack]

Oh. 
Well I find it more entertaining than another thread about avatars or whatever. I'm actually surprised it's taken this long to get a thread complaining, there have been quite a few banned so far. I guess most are too embarrassed to post, or know they don't have a leg to stand on.

Fine then!

How about if you had an option in the account setting which allowed you to disable the display of all signatures for your user (login).

This way members who don't want to see spam , beg-addresses, signatures can turn them off themselves. No input required by moderators. All users can be happy? Hopefully it's already an option in the forum code, as I doubt bitcointalk.org would have enough money to hire someone to code such a change if not... /s

I guess in the long run, if this were an option, the # of paid sigs would naturally decrease, as advertisers realised they might not be getting as many views as they thought they were...

This option already exists...

[SaltySpitoon]

How about if you had an option in the account setting which allowed you to disable the display of all signatures for your user (login).

This way members who don't want to see spam , beg-addresses, signatures can turn them off themselves. No input required by moderators. All users can be happy? Hopefully it's already an option in the forum code, as I doubt bitcointalk.org would have enough money to hire someone to code such a change if not... /s

I guess in the long run, if this were an option, the # of paid sigs would naturally decrease, as advertisers realised they might not be getting as many views as they thought they were...

Its not the big flashing letters in the signature that people are concerned with, like jackjack said, there is already an option to not show signatures. Its the 15,000 posts per week of people trying to boost their pay count at paid advertising.

I'd hope that the first step is putting the smackdown on those who abuse paid signatures, if that doesn't work, then disallowing paid signatures, if that doesn't work, remove signatures all together. Hopefully they would stop with just more smacking.

[counter]

I'm glad some of you feel comfortable whining about paid signatures on a thread that is about a different topic.  At the same time calling me a whiner, complainer, spammer or whatever nonsense you can come up with. Basically ridiculing someone for posting a thread about the total lack of response to emails and pms for my account being banned with no warning and 50+ posts being deleted in an instant.

After 20+ days of my account being banned with no response I basically get trolled for doing what any logical rational person would do.  I guess I'll be the bigger man and not feed the trolls.  I'll pm SaltySpitoon and see what advice I can get as that seems the only rational option.

Is this your account: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101576;sa=showPosts;start=0

Was you maybe using TOR or posting from several other accounts?

Yes that is my account.  I don't use Tor and these are the only accounts I have on this forum.

[counter]

can you both speculate somewhere else this thread isn't the place for that.  this account has a different offer completely and I didn't do anything wrong nor did I spam.  Try and wrap your mind around that before you post here, thanks.  

 Try and wrap your head around the fact that you are more than likely gaming the forums for your own monetary gain. That's probably why you got banned.

 Let me spell it out for you. Having one account advertising for Primedice, and another account advertising for coinrollit, is probably what got your account banned.

One for the road...  U R A MORON   

[BadBear]

Salty can't help you and neither can I. And no it's not likely you're going to be unbanned so you can claim your spam payments. You're gonna have to deal with it and move on, and just be glad this account hasn't been banned as well for ban evasion. I don't know how much more clearly that point can be made. Being ignored isn't a lack of an answer, it IS your answer. Stop trying to waste our time.