Community generated suggestions to improve the forum (+ eventual voting on them)

[Steamtyme]

I guess KYC for all the members

Read the thread before posting. This has come up several times, and unless hell froze over recently and no one told me Theymos has stated

Not a fucking chance

May have paraphrased that a little

Edit: Here's the response.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3097811.msg32026584#msg32026584

[r1s2g3]

Bitcoin discussion has become largely unusable. It's just full of farmers churning out their generic one liners. Go in any thread and play spot the farmer.

How many can you find on this page here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4820477.1140

All of them are farmer or sig spammer. Even reading 4 page of topic, there is nothing new in 58th page. It look bad that some of the accounts are Sr. member + that are doing sig spamming.  Now this Mega spam reached to 63^rd page.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4868904.80

4 merit for swatting the 4 bots there.

Sorry, I am not able to spot bots. Maybe you can create a guide for spotting them ..

It is interesting to look in this profile, posted 4 to 5 time in this same topic and posted in russian too in this  English thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1858713

I think we really need to trash bounty threads that are asking to paste fb/twt bounty report in there thread.
1. They are increasing the length of the thread.
2. Giving unnecessary bump to thread.
3. It makes headache to manually go through this post History of these bounty hunters.

Just wondering, you are the Moderator of that board handling and reading so much of spam, I think autolock of thread after 5 page might bring relief to you.

[coinlocket$]

There are many remarkable ideas proposed in this thread, I just wanted to know if it is possible or not to introduce a ban for IP, I know that there are cases where many people use a shared IP but there are cases that I reported in this forum where some people use more than 500 accounts like in this case (for abusing airdops and bounties) 1 MAN 560+ accounts on forum, Millions of tokens abused.

[LeGaulois]

There are many remarkable ideas proposed in this thread, I just wanted to know if it is possible or not to introduce a ban for IP, I know that there are cases where many people use a shared IP but there are cases that I reported in this forum where some people use more than 500 accounts like in this case (for abusing airdops and bounties) 1 MAN 560+ accounts on forum, Millions of tokens abused.

It will work only for 1 week. Then they will learn to use a VPN/VPS/proxy to get around the problem, it's like a war lost in advance.
You also will see a ton of "Sir I can't post..." threads by people sitting in a cybercafé with wife, brothers, cousins, paying a connection 20 hours per day and used one at a time

[Welsh]

This is probably more complicated than PHP code but perhaps if you could make more data available publicly you could get help from the community here as well.

It would probably be a good idea for the new forum to have the possibility of having users propose code changes as the forum ages, and new features need to be added or old ones changed slightly. Would probably be better for community input rather than hiring someone to do split the work, or theymos continue doing it himself.

[Shitcointalk]

Hey, I did start something similar here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4480507

Because I am lazy, I posted in "serious discussion" section so I wouldn't have to many (poor) replies. For the same reason, I also didn't read the 6 pages your thread's got already.

But, you might find some ideas that aren't in your list yet.

Good luck.

Edit: seems like I'm too late... I just saw that Theymos answered already !

[hilariousetc]

There are many remarkable ideas proposed in this thread, I just wanted to know if it is possible or not to introduce a ban for IP, I know that there are cases where many people use a shared IP but there are cases that I reported in this forum where some people use more than 500 accounts like in this case (for abusing airdops and bounties) 1 MAN 560+ accounts on forum, Millions of tokens abused.

How do you know they're all sharing an IP? Many farmers will share one or a handful of IPs but the smartest ones wouldn't. I wouldn't be against something like once an IP is used to create an account it is 'burned' and no more accounts can be created from that one. Maybe paying the evil fee or whatever per account could white-list them, but not sure how effect either suggestion would be.

Hey, I did start something similar here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4480507

Because I am lazy, I posted in "serious discussion" section so I wouldn't have to many (poor) replies. For the same reason, I also didn't read the 6 pages your thread's got already.

But, you might find some ideas that aren't in your list yet.

Good luck.

Edit: seems like I'm too late... I just saw that Theymos answered already !

Fell free to suggest them here. I plan to compile users suggestions and others can vote on them and the most popular ones among the community will be moved to the top of the list. There's no guarantees that theymos will ever implement them or not but at least he and we can see what is popular amongst users here.

[CoinEraser]

I also have a small suggestion what could be improved in the forum. When a post is deleted in a self-moderated topic, you get a message, but in the message are no information about the thread in which the post was deleted. It would be good to know from which thread the message was deleted. A link to it would be great, from which thread the message was deleted. Otherwise you never know from which thread what was deleted and especially with old post, it's hard to know which post it was.   

[coinlocket$]

~
How do you know they're all sharing an IP? Many farmers will share one or a handful of IPs but the smartest ones wouldn't. I wouldn't be against something like once an IP is used to create an account it is 'burned' and no more accounts can be created from that one. Maybe paying the evil fee or whatever per account could white-list them, but not sure how effect either suggestion would be.

I understand your point of view but I think that if we introduce this limit of account for a single IP it slows down and a lot of activity for people who have more than 500 accounts. I do not think these people are willing to pay for "evil fees" and I strongly doubt that they are going to change their IP 500 resetting the router every time.
Also if I'm not wrong the Evel fee is only IF anyone get a ban till that moment you can use unlimited number of accounts for IP.

When someone is banned, their IP and some of their neighboring IPs receive evil points. The thought occurred to me recently that you could create a map of the Internet according to evil points, and I couldn't resist doing this right away. The result is pretty cool-looking IMO. It also seems to show that the evil score system is working as expected: the vast majority of the Internet is not being forced to pay, and in the isolated sections where a registration fee is required, prohibitively-large fees are very rare.

~

[TheBeardedBaby]

@hilariousetc
Can we gather here also suggestions which does not required theymos to do anything, like gather a group of DTs to monitor the Bounty Managers, as you proposed earlier, this will be one way to go. Finding solutions without changing the policy of the forum.  

Maybe we should focus on this direction since no major changes can be expected in the near future.

[Jet Cash]

I'm working on an ignore system with a categorised public display, and a multi-admin ticket support system.

[hilariousetc]

I also have a small suggestion what could be improved in the forum. When a post is deleted in a self-moderated topic, you get a message, but in the message are no information about the thread in which the post was deleted. It would be good to know from which thread the message was deleted. A link to it would be great, from which thread the message was deleted. Otherwise you never know from which thread what was deleted and especially with old post, it's hard to know which post it was.   

Yeah, the context of the post is important. I've had them before and it was hard to tell where it was deleted from and many users report the deleted message notification asking why it was deleted etc. Sometimes the post can seem perfectly valid but if the post was off topic or in a thread necrobumped then that's often why they're removed but without knowing where it came from you can't be sure nor can you give a concrete explanation as to why it was deleted.

@hilariousetc
Can we gather here also suggestions which does not required theymos to do anything, like gather a group of DTs to monitor the Bounty Managers, as you proposed earlier, this will be one way to go. Finding solutions without changing the policy of the forum.  

Maybe we should focus on this direction since no major changes can be expected in the near future.

If they don't require his input then they can easily be implemented and those things can be discussed or done elsewhere.

[Joel_Jantsen]

@hilariousetc
Can we gather here also suggestions which does not required theymos to do anything, like gather a group of DTs to monitor the Bounty Managers, as you proposed earlier, this will be one way to go. Finding solutions without changing the policy of the forum.  

Why would you want everything to be centralized than it already is? Why should all the control be given to the DT's instead of a proper system that operates on predefined rules? We know the DT system is broken, feedback's are often biased and subjective. You know, if that ever happens, you will only see the members of DT managing the campaigns and not let anybody else to do it. I really have like 3 members in my trust-list whose feedbacks I consider appropriate. I don't mind if a set of rules are defined for one to become a bounty manager or community has to approve on an individual basis.

Maybe we should focus on this direction since no major changes can be expected in the near future.

Not going to work out in the long run. Yes, we have DT, scams still exist, account farmers still exists, bumping services still exists and I can go in. We need an improved system to reduce this drastically.

[EcuaMobi]

A couple of suggestions I've already made in the past and haven't been considered yet:

• Show the default trust on the Marketplace for unregistered users. A lot of guests get scammed by users who are already tagged as scammers [link]
• Implement rules to reduce trust spam. For example any user should be able to leave only one 300-char feedback per week on any other's profile. [link]

[Avirunes]

A couple of suggestions I've already made in the past and haven't been considered yet:

• Show the default trust on the Marketplace for unregistered users. A lot of guests get scammed by users who are already tagged as scammers [link]

Vote for this [+1]

• Implement rules to reduce trust spam. For example any user should be able to leave only one 300-char feedback per week on any other's profile. [link]

One can still trust spam by creating new accounts. Although I think trust spam will be reduced to certain degree but still wouldn't be completely eliminated. Will vote for this as well [+1]


I would like to suggest adding a message like we have when we visit any thread in Investor based games to be displayed in every board where there are stickies to read the stickies of that board carefully.

What we have in Investor-based games:

Warning: You are in the Gambling section. You are likely to eventually lose any money that you gamble/"invest". Additionally, moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Do not gamble more than you can afford to lose.

And what I suggest.For example: In goods section,

(Please read all stickies of this board: (Boards link) carefully before participating in thread discussion or buying/selling goods and services)

Highlighting might get some good attention and that way maybe people will get aware about stickies. On top of it , it would be much better if Guest are also able to see this message.

I hope I was able to deliver my idea properly. Apologies in advance if have been already suggested earlier.

[coinlocket$]

I guess KYC for all the members is a must to avoid bots or anyone having so many accounts.

No it is not, I can post right here a link with eth link addresses connected and a kyc passed from spreadsheet data for one abuser with atleast 10 accounts.
It's seems quite easy to "steal" ID documents. Also someone probably will sell 3rd world ID for few bucks.

[hilariousetc]

A couple of suggestions I've already made in the past and haven't been considered yet:

• Show the default trust on the Marketplace for unregistered users. A lot of guests get scammed by users who are already tagged as scammers [link]
• Implement rules to reduce trust spam. For example any user should be able to leave only one 300-char feedback per week on any other's profile. [link]

I've actually suggested similar things like these before. People shouldn't be allowed to spam the trust needlessly. Some do it because they actually think it makes a difference and turns their score bright red the more they do, though this probably isn't huge issue.

• Implement rules to reduce trust spam. For example any user should be able to leave only one 300-char feedback per week on any other's profile. [link]

One can still trust spam by creating new accounts. Although I think trust spam will be reduced to certain degree but still wouldn't be completely eliminated. Will vote for this as well [+1]

True, they could, but you'd have to be pretty determined to do this. Most probably won't go to those lengths.

I would like to suggest adding a message like we have when we visit any thread in Investor based games to be displayed in every board where there are stickies to read the stickies of that board carefully.

What we have in Investor-based games:

Warning: You are in the Gambling section. You are likely to eventually lose any money that you gamble/"invest". Additionally, moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Do not gamble more than you can afford to lose.

And what I suggest.For example: In goods section,

(Please read all stickies of this board: (Boards link) carefully before participating in thread discussion or buying/selling goods and services)

I hope I was able to deliver my idea properly. Apologies in advance if have been already suggested earlier.

Those are pretty much what I've already suggested. See the bit at the bottom in red.

[LoyceV]

Can we gather here also suggestions which does not required theymos to do anything, ~

If they don't require his input then they can easily be implemented and those things can be discussed or done elsewhere.

Isn't this one that can be started without further effort from theymos:

• Enforce the sig campaign guidelines. If a campaign is spotted that is doing little to nothing and is abused en mass by spammers, farmers, bots and copy and pasters they are warned. If nothing changes then they are punished with such things as bans, threads trashed, signatures blacklisted site-wide etc.

OK in principle, would require thought/adjustment/implementation. Many of these things are more complex than they look at first glance.

I know you (hilariousandco) have suggested it before, and wrote the signature guidelines almost 2 years ago. Now that theymos says it's "OK in principle", can't you start banning them?

[hilariousetc]

Can we gather here also suggestions which does not required theymos to do anything, ~

If they don't require his input then they can easily be implemented and those things can be discussed or done elsewhere.


Isn't this one that can be started without further effort from theymos:

• Enforce the sig campaign guidelines. If a campaign is spotted that is doing little to nothing and is abused en mass by spammers, farmers, bots and copy and pasters they are warned. If nothing changes then they are punished with such things as bans, threads trashed, signatures blacklisted site-wide etc.

OK in principle, would require thought/adjustment/implementation. Many of these things are more complex than they look at first glance.

I know you've suggested it before, and wrote the signature guidelines almost 2 years ago. Now that theymos says it's "OK in principle", can't you start banning them?

He didn't say yes either: "OK in principle, would require thought/adjustment/implementation. Many of these things are more complex than they look at first glance". It wouldn't work without his input anyway so it's pointless without blacklisting their signatures. You can ban their accounts and trash their threads all you like but people will still continue to advertise for them and the banned campaigns will just run and organise them off site or through telegram etc. Many campaigns are already making joining telegram channels a requirement so they will just rally the troops there or on their website. We could get something going to police problem campaigns if you wanted to take things into your own hands. I've suggested before that the community starts some sort of 'campaign police' and starts leaving negative feedback for the utter crap campaigns that are doing absolutely nothing about spam and quality control and as such are being colossally abused by farmers/spammers/bots in the process. If something like five or ten users are caught copy and pasting then that campaign then gets negbomed by everyone until they show that they've made changes and removed all the spammers and bots etc. Feedback can then be removed. It won't stop them from running them but at least they'll know their behaviour is unacceptable by community standards and negative feedback doesn't look good when you're trying to raise money. It's certainly not ideal but neither is letting them get away with whatever they like and destroying the forum in the process. I would much rather theymos just put measures in place to stop or curb this behaviour such as sig blacklists and removing signatures from Juniors and/or requiring them to earn a merit before they can have a signature which would all work wonders.

[allahabadi]

I dunno if this sounds VERY naive; but do away with the DT; people should have to modify their Trust list to get the red/green/amber etc.

I believe DT gives a false sense of security on the forum and reduces checks and balances which otherwise people would do more.

Instead when clicking on someone's trust the trust feedbacks should be displayed in the order received by the most merited(over the default merits) and older members. A weighted system to display the feedbacks is what I mean.

EDIT: Also feedbacks by staff, admin and mods should be displayed on top.

EDIT: DT imho is the most abused system on the forum and also a breeding ground for group fights.

EDIT:

-snip-

We can disagree to disagree for all we want; BUT I WAS NEVER RED/AMBER/GREEN tagged; it is only a frustrated neutral that I have ever had, so stop trying to judge based on your biases.  

Please read it carefully; I never said merit and trust are the same thing; also I think being a mod requires you to have the trust of theymos which is far more important than handling BTCs in trades; which might have never happened. Not to say that theymos is infallible, but yeah he must be doing a better DD while appointing a mod, than people do while choosing an escrow or a dealer.

The merit-abuse is rampant and I'm not defending it; but yeah it will stop once the merits dry out; Trust, on the other hand, is perennial and won't dry out and is a much more dangerous territory; cause if it wasn't, then hilariousandco wouldn't have negged mdayonliner for trying to be an inexperienced escrow; for he sure has quite a few merits but doesn't have sufficient trust.