Self-moderated thread initiative. More work for us, less for the Mods.

[TheBeardedBaby]

After the SpamBuster club, where we have already reviewed over 2000 accounts and reported big part of them /many got banned too/ this is my next move.

To take away a big load from the Mods, so they can concentrate on more important matters that deleting walls of spam, I want to point out a solution that everyone is aware of but barely use /except LoyceV /.

When you start a thread, whenever possible, let it be a Self-moderated one. This is a way to take a bit of responsibility of the thread you are starting and an obligation to check it regularly for SPAM. This is one simple way to help the forum to be a better place for everyone.

I know many will not be happy with this suggestion because there are many different personalities and groups confronting each other, clashes of different ideas and characters is not uncommon too.

I'm not saying that this is manna to all the problems but let's set those things aside, we are taking about an initiative only to remove the spam.

This will be beneficial to the newbies too, as some of them are not here to spam but to learn and develop.

I have example of a thread infested with a higher quality spam which is difficult to report but I can delete myself

What you think??

[1713953711]

1713953711

[1713953711]

1713953711

[1713953711]

1713953711

[ibminer]

I'd rather not. If they are going to go through and delete posts, they can just as easily hit the 'report' button. Self-moderated threads all over the forum would just be annoying and I generally avoid self-moderated threads because they have typically been used to shut out the opinions of others and/or cover up shady activities. I don't want useless spam posts, but I'd rather have the mod deciding as opposed to the OP, let them report and the mods will decide.

To take away a big load from the Mods, so they can concentrate on more important matters that deleting walls of spam

What are the more important matters they should be dealing with?  Seems like spam and handling reported posts is 99% of the job they've been assigned?

And good job with the SpamBuster club, it sounds like it is having some positive effect and should be continued.

[LoyceMobile]

I partially agree with both above. Self-moderate threads are abused on the marketplace board. I don't think its wise to use it in a (political) discussion thread either.
But it works great against people who can't follow simple rules, or can't be bothered to even read the OP.

When I self-moderate a thread that has to do with money and my reputation on being fair, I often archive the thread and post the link. I hope this prevents it from looking shady.

[TheBeardedBaby]

I now that the self-moderated threads (SMT) can be abusive, but keep in mind that many boards have no active moderators besides the Global ones so making a SMT is a way to control the spam in places like the Economic section for example.

Of course in places where money are involved is not necessary as the amount of spam there is almost nothing but see the Bitcoin Discussion board. 99% of the threads are to be trashed if you ask me.

Regards the mods work, global mods are quite busy moderating the whole forum as some others (Flying Hellfish for example ) complaining for not having any reports to handle.

I guess it's due to the work load distribution problem, but this is more internal case so we are not aware of and we can only guessing here.


As I said it's not the manna of all the spam problems but it can be a bit of a help.

[suchmoon]

I'd rather not. If they are going to go through and delete posts, they can just as easily hit the 'report' button. Self-moderated threads all over the forum would just be annoying and I generally avoid self-moderated threads because they have typically been used to shut out the opinions of others and/or cover up shady activities. I don't want useless spam posts, but I'd rather have the mod deciding as opposed to the OP, let them report and the mods will decide.

There's a new wave of some nasty spamming bots/alts that technically don't violate rules but are nonetheless quite disruptive. See iasenko's example in the OP and another one here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4847725.msg43858387#msg43858387

These can drown any thread within hours. I don't know if reporting to mods would help, I actually don't even know what to put in the report. The posts are not entirely off topic. The users are likely alts but without proof reporting as "multiposting" won't work. Not plagiarism either. But seems like an attempt to farm merits.

I'm usually against the self-modded option however there are some users that I don't mind using it.

[hugeblack]

It 's up to you if you want a healthy discussion you can use that feature but use it dramatically is not ideal for:

 -  bypass 24h: you can read the details in this topic.[1]
 -  Abuse in some boards: marketplace, reputation, and scam Accusations.

So the only benefit of SMT is in discussions.
After the introduction of the merit system, ranking on the basis of activity has become unimportant.
Using that feature will make "More work for us, less for the campaign managers." [Even though they are paid to do that work]

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4651497.0

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't know if reporting to mods would help, I actually don't even know what to put in the report.

I agree with this and I feel your frustration.  Some of these posts aren't blatantly obvious spam--they're short, one-line statements that say nothing but are on-topic, and I don't think mods feel comfortable deleting those.

I generally stay away from self-moderated threads started from members I don't know, because I don't trust them not to delete an opposing opinion and I don't want to waste my time writing something lengthy and thought-out only to have it nuked.  Plus a lot of people here just don't like me, so there's always that.

However I support this suggestion.  Fully.  There are members I would trust not to delete my posts and I would be happy to post in their threads.  And if not, I just won't post in them--it's that simple.  I don't start many topics here, but I'll make an effort to do this whenever I next do so.  And I'll only delete shitposts. 

I was going to give a great example of a post I'd delete from this thread or this one, which were both obviously calling out spammers if you read the OP of each.  There were people who posted in those threads, and they were obviously only writing something about the thread title--and I titled those threads in a sort of sarcastic manner.  Those posts got deleted though, because I did report at least one to the mods.  Next time I'd like to be able to blast those shitspam post to hell without having to gamble on mods doing it for me.

[d5000]

I support the idea, and I'll probably apply it next time I start a thread.

I understand the fears mentioned by @ibminer, @LoyceMobile and @The Pharmacist (suppression of diverging opinions/scam accusations etc.).

But there is a rather simple fix if you have good intentions: Be transparent! For example, add a "moderation note" like DooMAD did here and explain the "rules" why you could delete posts. And if you don't follow your own rules, then you probably will lose trust and support from other members.

Above all, self-moderation is a good idea in the main "Bitcoin" sections and Economics/Speculation. In threads related to businesses (Marketplace, Altcoin ANNs etc.) however self-moderation is not really convenient to get trusted, as was already written by some. But spam in these threads is not harming the forum so much, because everybody knows they are little more than advertisements. It's the spam in the main sections which is most harmful and gives a bad impression to (honest) new visitors.

[Jet Cash]

I keep forgetting to do this. I've just started this thread in the politics forum, and I wish I had made it self-moderating. I think it has a lot of potential for the spammers.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5024269.0

Is it possible for a mod to change the status after the thread has been started?

[TheBeardedBaby]

I keep forgetting to do this. I've just started this thread in the politics forum, and I wish I had made it self-moderating. I think it has a lot of potential for the spammers.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5024269.0

Is it possible for a mod to change the status after the thread has been started?

You can just lock it and move it to the archive and open a new one. I've done this before

[Jet Cash]

You can just lock it and move it to the archive and open a new one. I've done this before

It's had 7 views, so that could cause a bit of confusion.

Maybe this thread will motivate me to make future threads self-moderating.

[hilariousetc]

Good idea in theory and you and anyone else who wants to join you are free to try it, but when there's only a handful of people doing this and self-modding threads it doesn't really make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things when you're swimming in a sea of shit. You'll soon realise how much work it is to keep on top of the spam because you delete one post and there's another made just as fast to replace it. I would prefer we tackle the spam in other ways but I get there's not much anyone can do without theymos on board so community-led initiatives have to be proposed in the meantime.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Good idea in theory and you and anyone else who wants to join you are free to try it, but when there's only a handful of people doing this and self-modding threads it doesn't really make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things when you're swimming in a sea of shit. You'll soon realise how much work it is to keep on top of the spam because you delete one post and there's another made just as fast to replace it. I would prefer we tackle the spam in other ways but I get there's not much anyone can do without theymos on board so community-led initiatives have to be proposed in the meantime.

If you delete shitposts one or twice a week it's fine. All the signature campaigners will cry for loosing postcounts and after some time they will find out that spaming your thread is worthless. The people who really wants to have discussions can have them in the section. If the post count is important for them  then this is a way to "control" them in a way.

If they play dirty we have to do it too.

[LoyceV]

I'd rather not. If they are going to go through and delete posts, they can just as easily hit the 'report' button. Self-moderated threads all over the forum would just be annoying and I generally avoid self-moderated threads because they have typically been used to shut out the opinions of others and/or cover up shady activities.

It depends on who started the thread. I've only had a few of my posts deleted from self-moderated threads: it happens when OP runs a scam, in which case red trust solves it, or when I post something that only serves a temporary purpose (as in: "feel free to delete this after reading").

Self-moderation works very well against spam. I think it scares away most spammers before they even post, which is great! It also allows me to delete more posts than a Mod would delete, in order to keep my thread clean and to summarize posts. I try to be careful not to overdo this though.

I keep forgetting to do this.

Lol. It took me about a year to get used to doing it

Is it possible for a mod to change the status after the thread has been started?

No. That wouldn't be fair to posts made by users who don't want to be moderated by you.

[Flash Cunt]

I think of self-moderation as sitting on your hands so as not to call shit posters scamming cunts.

[pugman]

Here's what you can do if you're concerned scammers would make non-self moderated thread into a self moderated one. If threads are created in discussion boards, then its good to have a self mod option, its not good however in most of the Marketplace threads.

People should also have the ability to convert threads to self mod in specific boards and not all of them. Problem solved.