Is the forum over regulated?

[Quickseller]

In the past, when a bitcoin related company was advertising their services, they would have an incentive to only accept those with a decent reputation, and/or to not accept those with a negative reputation, and to take other measures to prevent those advertising on their behalf from making garbage posts. The incentive was that if many users over time made garbage posts while advertising for the company, then the company's reputation would suffer and the advertising would do more harm than good.

I'm not sure this has ever been the case. There's a few campaign mangers that enforce their own rules, but I doubt the people behind hiring them actually care, and it's the campaign managers that are insisting on specific rules. It definitely didn't do more harm than good. It would be nice if that was the case, but that's not really how advertising works. 

PrimeDice came to mind when I was writing that. Their advertising campaign was very big, and full of spammers, and over time many people started publicly complaining about their advertising, and they eventually reduced their campaign to only posters with good posts, and subsequently only allowed staff to advertise for them.


Another example was, IIRC, the "777" campaign as they paid very little but accepted everyone(?), and attracted many spammers. The owner of that casino eventually earned negative trust.

Some campaign managers will say they will only manage campaigns with certain rules, however it is ultimately the company's money, and someone who doesn't agree with the rules, or is being denied payment what they perceive to be unfairly, can appeal to the company directly for an exception to the rule.

[1715654921]

1715654921

[1715654921]

1715654921

[1715654921]

1715654921

[suchmoon]

Why bother mods and members with that problem? [...] report that thread to mods

So which is it then, do we need mods or not? ANN thread OPs already have the self-moderated option and could use it except most of them LOVE shitposters bumping their threads and won't do anything to clean it up.

Instead of this useless thread you should have spent some time reporting shitposts to moderators.

[pugman]

Spam and bot problems in the announcement and altcoin sections. Why bother mods and members with that problem? Let the campaign managers handle it by self moderating their topic.(In fact, that's what campaign managers are already doing. They saw every post made on their thread. If they saw spam, report or ban that user from the thread.) Create a subsection, something like 'Spammy ICOs' (shady ICOs, whatever) and  If the campaign managers fail to moderate spam, report that thread to mods and mods will remove the topic to that subsection. In that way, if these ICOs are using bot, they have to compete with other bots. What can be the potential problems by doing so?

Why bother mods? Because they are hired for moderating. That's why.

Not all campaign managers create a self-mod topic. The ANN thread starters do,in most cases, by using the sentence: "To avoid spam". But they do it to hide the truth.

And you can't ban members from posting in a topic, or a board, had that been the case, digaran would have been banned from reputation.

There is no-need for a Spammy ICO subsection, people will think that it is a subsection to say shit like : "Marinecoin is better than btc", "shitcoin to the moon", etc.

There are 2-3 boards depending upon the case to report these ICOs. If they break the rules, meta section is for that. If its related to members who are not breaking the rules but still are doing shady stuff, Reputation section is for that. If an ICO is a scam or shows its scammy behavior, then there's Scam Accusations board. What else do you actually need?

Do you actually think ICOs have to compete each other in terms of bots,out of everything else? Well, the problems of bots right now are:

- They are bypassing cloudfare, which even some mods are unable to(the scrapping bot is no longer working(?) and the Autoban bot as well).
 
- They are making every board their victim, by spamming, making things worse for those who report the bots and for the mods.
And why was the first paragraph even required? You're talking about rank/merit/activity and all of a sudden you're talking about bots? And their potential problems? Bots are not posting here because they are hurt by the ranking system, they are posting here to earn money. That is why.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Another example was, IIRC, the "777" campaign as they paid very little but accepted everyone(?), and attracted many spammers.

I don't think it was 777, unless there's something I don't know or unless Lutpin wasn't managing it at some point.  My sense of history is not good on campaigns.  Yobit and Secondstrade fit that description, though.  They took anyone, and Secondstrade kept decreasing the payments until everyone quit and their original account got hacked, IIRC. 

[Quickseller]

Another example was, IIRC, the "777" campaign as they paid very little but accepted everyone(?), and attracted many spammers.

I don't think it was 777, unless there's something I don't know or unless Lutpin wasn't managing it at some point.  My sense of history is not good on campaigns.  Yobit and Secondstrade fit that description, though.  They took anyone, and Secondstrade kept decreasing the payments until everyone quit and their original account got hacked, IIRC. 

I may have been thinking about secondstrade. It looks like lutpin was in fact managing the 777 campaign starting in July 2016, however before lutpin took over (a new thread was created by lightlord), the pay was very low, but it looks like the amount of spam generated by that campaign was mitigated because of the limited number of spots.

[minthit]

I feel you bro. I guess you're a hypocrite yourself.

@PsylockReborn Have no problem with that. I'm not even whining though.

If you look at how people posted in 2011 vs. today, you'll see an incredible difference in the quality of posts.

@The Pharmacist I do enjoy reading those posts and feeling the goosebumps.

I just happen to have certain spammy sections on ignore and it doesn't bother me personally.

So, it's that the ICO section is already spammy and no need for a subsection? Now, I see.

The incentive was that if many users over time made garbage posts while advertising for the company, then the company's reputation would suffer and the advertising would do more harm than good.

@Quickseller That's something I assume creating a subsection could bring about.

So which is it then, do we need mods or not?

@suchmoon It's not about removing mod. (I don' think there's anything I said so. Maybe my english.)  It's about reducing the workload of mods by delegating some of the responsibility to campaign managers rather than letting the mods handle each and every individual shitposts.

And you can't ban members from posting in a topic, or a board

- They are bypassing cloudfare, which even some mods are unable to(the scrapping bot is no longer working(?) and the Autoban bot as well).
 - They are making every board their victim, by spamming, making things worse for those who report the bots and for the mods.

@pugman New for me and I won't be able to know these on my own.
Well, thanks guys. Pls let me know if I have to lock this thread.

P.S. It would be better if every post is not directed towards merit. I'm sure there are people who don't care much or being neutral about merit. Peace!:)

[Welsh]

I thought I remember Primedice being alright, and ran well. That was a bloody long time ago though, and can't really recall who was hired. I don't think I remember Secondstrade at all. I guess recently we've had better run campaigns, because of the issues that are now widespread. At least a few years ago the spam problem wasn't as apparent.