Spam Sections

[Welsh]

The only issue of higher ranked members accepting payments for posting an announcement for them they're effectively promoting that business. The owners of the coin are using the reputation, and age of the user who posts for them. Despite what I think, and what others might think that age of account doesn't mean squat when it comes to advertising or vouching for a service or whatever. From a newbie perspective they're generally going to trust those higher leveled accounts. This then begs the question, should we tag those that are advertising these projects? I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't be willing to put my name to any old project.

I do agree that the moderation of the current signature campaigns from the signature managers point of view is an issue. However, I feel combining copper membership, and the required to pay the forum a yearly amount or something to be able to post their thread would prevent most issues. Although, not all startup projects are going to have the funds necessary for this, and they might well be decent projects.

[tranthidung]

From a newbie perspective they're generally going to trust those higher leveled accounts.

It is the fact. Honestly, I fall into that trap too when I was noob.
It is true that newbies will sure admire Senior Members and above (as I was), because their badges, their ranks, their rights to wear signature, avatars.
Furthermore, some scam projects build their bigger and clever traps by sending bunches of sMerits to OPs of scam projects. Newbies are easily to think projects that have OPs received bunches of merits from other high-ranked users are really potential projects.
A project with 100 merits from 10 Legendary members. Damn it, at first glance, they are likely good projects.
Then, they move next to bounty thread that managed by another Legendary account. What a perfect trap!

This then begs the question, should we tag those that are advertising these projects?

Participants should not be tagged, if those scam projects and OPs have not yet get negative trusts and Active Flags from DT members.

I do agree that the moderation of the current signature campaigns from the signature managers point of view is an issue. However, I feel combining copper membership, and the required to pay the forum a yearly amount or something to be able to post their thread would prevent most issues. Although, not all startup projects are going to have the funds necessary for this, and they might well be decent projects.

I think if there are required fees to run signature campaigns. It should be bi-weekly or monthly-fees.
Fees should be determined based on companies plan to hire how many participants, and how many maximum posts their participants might make and get paid per week/ per month.
If one company plan to run a campaigns with 100 participants, and maximum posts per week are 600; fees should be different from campaigns that ask their 100 participants make only 250 posts per week.

I knew a project that run by one person, run their campaign here with a few cents for participants, but they ran it seriously.
Microlancer.io

[Welsh]

Participants should not be tagged, if those scam projects and OPs have not yet get negative trusts and Active Flags from DT members.

I was referring to the campaign manager. Lets say we disallow new accounts from opening threads on the altcoin section, and we only allow Full members, and beyond. If that project turns bad for legitimate reasons or not should the campaign manager be held responsible too? They are not only managing the campaign, but they're also posting the announcement thread for the project.

I bring up the issue because I know that a lot of campaign managers do not care for the ethnics behind the project, and only care about the money that the job brings. Being a campaign manager brings in some decent money for the amount of work that's required of you. Especially, since it's quite obvious that some projects in the altcoin section especially are using automatic ways of enrolling users, and counting posts.

Personally, from my stand point if I were a campaign manager I would be micromanaging every aspect of it, and I'd probably be a little bit too strict, but at the end of the day your image, and the companies image is everything, and if you're allowing low quality spammers posting around the forum that doesn't look good. I know this isn't the way advertising works, and spamming actually brings results, however from a personal moral standpoint if you're getting paid to do something you better be doing it right, and to the best of your ability.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

From a newbie perspective they're generally going to trust those higher leveled accounts. This then begs the question, should we tag those that are advertising these projects? I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't be willing to put my name to any old project.

From my point of view, Yes both participants and managers should be tagged if they're intentionally promoting this project which has been labeled scam and when i mean scam, am not speaking of the simple issues instead those that can lead to demage or lost of fund of forum members. If these guys are willing to put their reputations on the line for few bucks then they do deserve the tags.

No, if they're not aware of the scamming behavior of the projects. Some projects Initially don't start as scams from the very beginning so they shouldn't be held responsible but for those which are clear cases (like, fake team, Ponzi scheme, plagiarism sites, whitepaper etc) we should discourage people from patronizing this project through through signature ads on the forum or managing this campaigns and the best way to achieve this, is by enforcing tagging of the promoters and managers after they must have been warned but refused to take corrections.

[Welsh]

From my point of view, Yes both participants and managers if they're intentionally promoting this project which has been labeled scam and when i mean scam, am not speaking of the simple issues instead those that can lead to demage or lost of fund of other forum members. If these guys are willing to put their reputations on the line for few bucks then they do deserve the tag.

No, if they're not aware of the scamming behavior of the projects. Some projects Initially don't start as scams from the very beginning so they shouldn't be held responsible but for those which are clear cases (like, fake team, Ponzi scheme, plagiarism sites, whitepaper etc) we should discourage people from patronizing this project through through signature ads on the forum and the best way to achieve that is by enforcing tagging of the promoters after they must have been warned.

I would agree that a project failing doesn't mean it's a scam. These are called investments for a reason, however this of course means that a project stuck to its promises, and it simply failed because it wasn't as successful as they originally planned. This is where the area gets gray though. What if the intentions of the project was to scam from the beginning, and we have evidence of that, but there's no evidence of the project manager being involved. I would probably lean on the side of innocent until proven guilty on that one, but this is why I believe putting your name to a project that you aren't personally involved in is a pretty risky move because you don't know the intentions of these projects. Managing a signature campaign is different, you're effectively promising to pay the participants for advertising the service as long as you carry out that you aren't really tied to the project, unless you're willingly advertising a scam project which again is a different scenario.

[tranthidung]

Sometimes, the threshold between scam and non-scam are vague. There are always efforts to do personal/ institutional assisinations by scam accusation, or whatsoever. Bittrex got attacks, Binance got attacks, and Bitmex or Bitfinex too. Fake scam accusation can turn into active Flags if scammers successfully trapped DT members. It might be rare probability, but we can not exclude such probability.
What if, a project get active flags, their participants got red tags; then months later, their active flag turn into inactive?
Will DT members spend time to remove neg tags on that project's participants?
I doubt that DT members will do that, especially in case number of participants are huge.
Let's see what Yobit did. Only theymos' manual handle solve issues, but there is noone got red tags due to this. Yobit is a shady exchange, but yeah, admin, global moderators, or DT members have reasons to not tag anyone supports Yobit. Only people who spam and hit threshold of total spam reports got bans from admin.

Are there anyone will tag other people who support Bitcoin Cash, ie.? And, yes, even there are scam projects, people still have rights to wear which kind of signature they want, as there is no restrictive rule on this, as of writing. How to prove that they wear signature as free supports or wear signature to get payments? No one can prove if scam companies really want to run their shady promotions with acceptable level, not massively like what Yobit did.

[actmyname]

There's probably plenty of people here who could run them decently. I'm sure some users would even accept payment in tokens, but it's a real issue when inexperienced users run them, many of whom are brand new to the forum themselves and don't know how things work here or what should be expected of them, but if we let people run them how they want then people are going to take advantage of that and be lazy in doing it. Then of course there's the campaigns that don't even have a manager to begin with and those are the ones that do the worst damage.

Having seen the mentality of many signature spammers and the rhetoric that they spout in the topics regarding bounties, it seems that to many 'bounty hunters' that they realize tokens can fail but will participate with no regard for the actual prospective success of the project. Rather, it's more like them gambling on the result of the tokens. Signature spammers with this mentality contribute greatly to the spam since all they truly want is to jump in quickly, post their quota and leave with the roll of the dice. When it comes to social media campaigns that are confined to the bounty section, this is less of an issue since the section itself is basically created to contain all the generated spam.

From a newbie perspective they're generally going to trust those higher leveled accounts.

Even the higher-ranking members will post on the "does Legendary posting ANN" threads will say something asinine about trusting a project more because there's a Legendary member posting the thread.

[darklus123]

Imho Politics & Society and Speculation are more spammy than your list. But as said, it depends from one user to another how he perceives certain posts as spam.
All in all, most of the forum has big amounts of spam, unfortunately. Simply some manage to ignore it better than others.

I am not aware that Politics & society section are more spammy lol, Maybe because of those new idiots who started creating a lot of new threads but when you are going to look at the bitcoin discussion section. Most of the topics are repeated and getting ridiculously swarmed up. So I personally can't agree that the polsci section are more toxic than those sections that were stated above.

We all know that the main reason why those certain sections are having a huge trash posts because of the campaign and mostly polsci post is not counted.

[tranthidung]

I am not aware that Politics & society section are more spammy lol, Maybe because of those new idiots who started creating a lot of new threads but when you are going to look at the bitcoin discussion section. Most of the topics are repeated and getting ridiculously swarmed up. So I personally can't agree that the polsci section are more toxic than those sections that were stated above.

We all know that the main reason why those certain sections are having a huge trash posts because of the campaign and mostly polsci post is not counted.

Wherever posts counted for bounties, campaigns, there are spammers. Serious campaigns often do not count posts in P & S section, but shit bounties count them all. They don't care where their supporters post. They just use stupid bot to count posts, or manually check posts in profile pages, and don't care to visit post history to see where supporters post (with or without signature display), and post-contents.
Another plus point that P & S section can be abused to spam is signature enabled to display.  

[darklus123]

Wherever posts counted for bounties, campaigns, there are spammers. Serious campaigns often do not count posts in P & S section, but shit bounties count them all. They don't care where their supporters post. They just use stupid bot to count posts, or manually check posts in profile pages, and don't care to visit post history to see where supporters post (with or without signature display), and post-contents.
Another plus point that P & S section can be abused to spam is signature enabled to display.  

But is that really happening right now? cause to be very honest  I find more posts in the PolSci much worthy to discuss than those from the Bitcoin Discussion. Or Is it maybe because I'm just keeping an eye to those threads that interests me.

What you were talking about really are a possibilities but as what I am currently seeing (There are still more nonsense threads being added in the Bitcoin Discussion Sections and even economics is much worse.

[UmerIdrees]

Wherever posts counted for bounties, campaigns, there are spammers. Serious campaigns often do not count posts in P & S section, but shit bounties count them all. They don't care where their supporters post. They just use stupid bot to count posts, or manually check posts in profile pages, and don't care to visit post history to see where supporters post (with or without signature display), and post-contents.
Another plus point that P & S section can be abused to spam is signature enabled to display.  

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Also what is the difference between the serious campaigns and non-serious campaign ?

The fact is that many few good campaigns do pay for all the posts including P&S and off topic too. You can post constructive in these sections also and more importantly if the campaign manager is reputed and does his responsibility well, it is hard for spammers to remain in the campaign.

[Welsh]

if the campaign manager is reputed and does his responsibility well, it is hard for spammers to remain in the campaign.

The current problem we are facing is many of the campaign managers aren't running their campaigns effectively. The majority of the altcoin campaigns are very poorly managed, and let just about anyone join them with no sort of moderation at all. The Bitcoin ones seem to be generally managed a little better overall, and we all know who the good managers of the forum are.

In a perfect world we would have good campaign managers for all the campaigns, but that's never going to be a reality unless restrictions are placed on posting signature campaigns.

[sujonali1819]

Trading Discussion and Altcoin Discussion section are getting the shelter of spammers because of that persons who are continuously creating new topic which was previously posted. I don't say it is 100% same topic but the main focus of these post are quite same. So some people are persistently creating same topic and people are continuously answering the same things on these topic.

[Findingnemo]

Trading Discussion and Altcoin Discussion section are getting the shelter of spammers because of that persons who are continuously creating new topic which was previously posted. I don't say it is 100% same topic but the main focus of these post are quite same. So some people are persistently creating same topic and people are continuously answering the same things on these topic.

If you see the repetitive or useless topics you can report OP to the moderator so the whole thread will be vanished with all the spam replies on it.And also the users who need to lock the topics if the replies get reluctant on it.

[finaleshot2016]

if the campaign manager is reputed and does his responsibility well, it is hard for spammers to remain in the campaign.

The current problem we are facing is many of the campaign managers aren't running their campaigns effectively. The majority of the altcoin campaigns are very poorly managed, and let just about anyone join them with no sort of moderation at all. The Bitcoin ones seem to be generally managed a little better overall, and we all know who the good managers of the forum are.

In a perfect world we would have good campaign managers for all the campaigns, but that's never going to be a reality unless restrictions are placed on posting signature campaigns.

I definitely agree! Most of the campaigns now, even the high-paying campaigns do have low-quality posters. It's such a disgrace if they're receiving a high payment but their posts are like a newbie. Those participants that are on paying campaigns should avoid posting in altcoin discussion. There are no healthy discussions produced on that section, more like it's just a spam area. Most of the campaigns require to have a constructive post but still, some participants aren't aware of that rule.

Altcoins signature campaigns are trash and most of them are scams. I doubt that the altcoin discussion will be managed and organized unless they implement another rule or system to avoid shitposting on mentioned discussions.

[tranthidung]

I definitely agree! Most of the campaigns now, even the high-paying campaigns do have low-quality posters. It's such a disgrace if they're receiving a high payment but their posts are like a newbie. Those participants that are on paying campaigns should avoid posting in altcoin discussion. There are no healthy discussions produced on that section, more like it's just a spam area. Most of the campaigns require to have a constructive post but still, some participants aren't aware of that rule.

Altcoins signature campaigns are trash and most of them are scams. I doubt that the altcoin discussion will be managed and organized unless they implement another rule or system to avoid shitposting on mentioned discussions.

I partially disagreed!
High-paid campaigns are the most attractive ones in the forum, so they are most competitive. Applicants have to fight each other and with very high rejecting-odds,
It is just beginnings, after accepted to join, if participants made low quality posts, or good/ high quality posts at early weeks, then slowly and gradually decrease their post quality over weeks, they will be under risks of attacks or reports from others whom always find for chances to join those campaigns.
They might do reports to campaign managers (through complaints); reports to forum staffs; or even publicly open threads to complain about that.

In fact, there is no doubt that average quality of participants in high-paid campaigns are higher than participants in low-paid campaigns, especially in shit-spamming campaigns.

[libert19]

Imho Politics & Society and Speculation are more spammy than your list. But as said, it depends from one user to another how he perceives certain posts as spam.
All in all, most of the forum has big amounts of spam, unfortunately. Simply some manage to ignore it better than others.

Signature campaigns usually do not count posts in those sections, so how come users spam there? What's incentive?

If they still spam irrespective of signature campaigns, then the issue is something else, not signature campaigns, which everybody keeps saying.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Those participants that are on paying campaigns should avoid posting in altcoin discussion. There are no healthy discussions produced on that section, more like it's just a spam area.

No healthy discussion you say and you think the Bitcoin discussion, Gambling and Trading discussion board is better?, even the economy board is getting affected. No board is spam free and there are decent (quality) discussion in all board. A quick sign to identify a discussion that doesn't need generic response are the numbers of replies on that topic. Being a frequent visitor to the Alternative section i can testify I have encountered quality discussion that the bitcoin boards can't boost off.

Sure the board is full of spam but so are other boards, you don't discourage members to post there just because they're on high paying campaign. Running away from the spam problem won't solve it.  The healthy discussion on the board are lacking audience due to suggestion like yours, I don't support it.

[Welsh]

I definitely agree! Most of the campaigns now, even the high-paying campaigns do have low-quality posters. It's such a disgrace if they're receiving a high payment but their posts are like a newbie. Those participants that are on paying campaigns should avoid posting in altcoin discussion. There are no healthy discussions produced on that section, more like it's just a spam area. Most of the campaigns require to have a constructive post but still, some participants aren't aware of that rule.

Altcoins signature campaigns are trash and most of them are scams. I doubt that the altcoin discussion will be managed and organized unless they implement another rule or system to avoid shitposting on mentioned discussions.

I don't think they need to avoid posting in Altcoin Discussion. I wouldn't change my habits just to get paid more, and I definitely do post in sections that don't get paid. For example serious discussion, but I'm not obsessed with hitting the maximum posts that I can get paid for, and I often don't even do half of that since becoming a moderator. Point being, I don't think just because you're in a signature campaign you should be altering your behavior, and avoid posting in sections that you would normally. Its the campaign managers job to decide whether they pay you or not for posting in certain sections.

[darklus123]

I definitely agree! Most of the campaigns now, even the high-paying campaigns do have low-quality posters. It's such a disgrace if they're receiving a high payment but their posts are like a newbie.

You should start pointing out names, it is quite hard to identify this one because as far as I am seeing most of the higher paid signature participants are actually posting a quality ones rather than to those who are paid quite lower. It is also not good to try posting about how low the quality posts are based on your point of view. Are you relatively saying that the one who's been managing the "High Paid Campaign" is ineffective?

There are actually very few discussions in there that are somehow good so do not discourage all not to post there if they are getting paid for it. That is completely irrational.