Effect of signature bans

[suchmoon]

A few months ago some users have been given temp+signature bans in lieu of permanents bans for plagiarism. Here is how the posting habits of these users have changed since then.

   #  User                       Signature     Ban Date  Unban Date  Sig Ban Until  Posts Before     Posts Now    Difference 
   1. Acura3600                  pirate      2019-05-16  2019-07-30     2020-05-21            57            23          -60% 
   2. Branko                     azbit       2019-06-07  2019-06-19     2019-12-16            69            35          -49% 
   3. cellard                    chipmixer   2019-05-11                 2020-05-15            35             0         -100% 
   4. ChiBitCTy                  <empty>     2018-04-28  2019-03-11     2020-03-09            68            64           -6% 
   5. creeps                     bustadice   2019-08-02                 2029-08-02           136             0         -100% 
   6. egghead123                 <empty>     2018-08-17  2019-05-20     2019-12-05             1             0         -100% 
   7. hacker1001101001           howeycoins  2019-05-14  2019-07-14     2021-05-14           143            20          -86% 
   8. lovesmayfamilis            bestmixer   2019-05-10  2019-07-16     2020-05-14           182           107          -41% 
   9. redsn0w                    <empty>     2019-01-14  2019-03-19     2021-02-02             0            11           +++ 
  10. shasan                     bitblender  2019-05-13  2019-07-15     2021-05-13           340            37          -89% 
  11. thejaytiesto               <empty>     2019-03-28                 2020-05-16             0             0           --- 
  12. tyz                        livecoin    2019-05-19  2019-07-25     2020-05-24           139            20          -86% 
  13. WhiteManWhite              huobi       2019-05-21  2019-07-21     2020-05-21            11            24         +118% 
  14. Xenrise                    bitvest     2019-05-09                 2021-05-20           229             0         -100% 
  15. zazarb                     <for rent>  2019-05-12  2019-07-14     2021-05-14            21            10          -52% 

• Signature - last known signature before the ban.
• Ban Date - last post before the ban.
• Unban Date - first post after the ban (likely when the temp ban expired). May be empty if the user hasn't posted yet after the ban.
• Sig Ban Until - expiration date shown in the current signature.
• Posts Before - number of posts during a 30-day period 30 days before the ban (e.g. for a ban that occurred May 15 this would be the number posts between ~ March 16 - April 15.
• Posts Now - number of posts during the last 30 days (~ August 24 - September 23).
• Difference - change in the number of posts from "before" to "now".

Please note that the data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate as most of it had to be inferred from post histories, ban appeals, archive sites, etc. There is no "official" data source for temp bans or signature bans. Sig bans that have already expired (e.g. Yobit) are not included.

[1713506292]

1713506292

[1713506292]

1713506292

[1713506292]

1713506292

[morvillz7z]

I don't really have any special takeaways from the data above, think it's not shocking to see people who are sig banned to disappear completely and stop posting. It's not going to be shocking again when their bans come to an end and they get back to their usual posting habits aka being extremely active. ^[1] It is what it is.

By the way, why is creeps signature ban that long? It says "Banned from displaying signatures until August 02, 2029". That can't be right, i mean what did he do to earn himself 10 years...had tea with someone's wife?

edit: [1] I'd like to clarify, i specifically had the -100% people in mind.

[suchmoon]

I don't really have any special takeaways from the data above, think it's not shocking to see people who are sig banned to disappear completely and stop posting. It's not going to be shocking again when their bans come to an end and they get back to their usual posting habits aka being extremely active. It is what it is.

I think signature bans are working as intended: giving some users a deserved second chance - ChiBitCTy, redsn0w, WhiteManWhite, perhaps Branko, lovesmayfamilis, and zazarb can also be included in this category since a slow down of ~50% doesn't seem unusual - while at the same time being almost equivalent to a permaban for others.

By the way, why is creeps signature ban that long? It says "Banned from displaying signatures until August 02, 2029". That can't be right, i mean what did he do to earn himself 10 years...had tea with someone's wife?

No idea why, but that's what it says on the user profile. There is no appeal thread as far as I can see.

If the temp ban was 60 days he should be back in a couple of weeks so you'll be able to ask him

[actmyname]

I, for one, am glad that ChiBitCTy has still remained relatively the same. Though, considering he's the only one I recognize as a collector, it makes sense that he kept the same number of posts.

[bluefirecorp_]

Wow, 229 shitposts to 0.

Crazy stats. It's truly amazing how many people are posting to these forums with pure financial incentive.

WhiteManWhite is a surprising ban though.

[suchmoon]

Wow, 229 shitposts to 0.

To be fair, Xenrise might still be banned. Of those who have zero posts, thejaytiesto and cellard had 60-day bans, bu I don't know about Xenrise and creeps.

[tranthidung]

The results in OP is interesting, and somehow it gives us a good overview on changes in posting habits of those ones given second chances from permanent bans and jumped out of grave. Most of them have decreased their regular post quota.

However, they are only raw figures that do not include so many other factors that can significantly affect post quota (30days period) of users, such as campaigns those users joined before their permanent bans.

For example: I know some of them, such as @shasan:
Weeks before his ban day, he joined the BitBlender campaign (I am one of that campaign's participants too), that has max post cap per week is 60. This is one of factor should be considered. In that campaign, shasan likely made max post cap per month at 240 posts, and 100 extra posts made likely to hunt for merits and rank up.  

Anyway, the ban period of signature for one or two year is too long, and it mostly drains out motivation to post to rank up or whatever reasons.

The thread gives me another idea. In fact, I observed it for months, but has not yet started to analyse it. Thank you, @suchmoon.  

[The Sceptical Chymist]

It's truly amazing how many people are posting to these forums with pure financial incentive.

Yeah, it is.  I don't know how many times I've heard the "posting for pennies" thing from people when they're raging against shitposters, but it's not true--especially when bitcoin is above $10k.  It's not a small amount in some cases.

Anyway, great data collection suchmoon.  I really don't keep track of who's been banned and was actually surprised to see cellard, zazarb, and a couple of other members on that list.  I think I remember seeing a few members being kicked out of the Chipmixer campaign but I don't exactly remember why.  Very interesting stuff here. 

If you're being paid to post, there's an incentive--and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that.  If you know how to write and can make your posts even the least bit interesting, it's OK to post more than you usually would if you weren't getting paid.  It keeps the discussion flowing and obviously benefits the member who's in the campaign.  The problem is and always has been the idiots who have to post outside their local boards in a language they can't write AND about something they likely have no interest in (crypto).  I don't think most of the people on the list here fit that description, btw. 

[suchmoon]

However, they are only raw figures that do not include so many other factors that can significantly affect post quota (30days period) of users, such as campaigns those users joined before their permanent bans.

It sounds like part of the same thing. If being in a signature campaign means that someone made posts they wouldn't have made without the signature - that's not a good sign. Come to think of it, that's probably what led to plagiarism to begin with. Trying to make the "quota" at any cost.

I surely hope that if I ever get sig-banned (probably for posting some unattributed Taylor Swift lyrics years ago) I'd stick around to annoy you all anyway.

[tranthidung]

It sounds like part of the same thing. If being in a signature campaign means that someone made posts they wouldn't have made without the signature - that's not a good sign. Come to think of it, that's probably what led to plagiarism to begin with. Trying to make the "quota" at any cost.

I surely hope that if I ever get sig-banned (probably for posting some unattributed Taylor Swift lyrics years ago) I'd stick around to annoy you all anyway.

The point is signature campaigns and chances to rank up to earn more extra money motivate them, but if they made plagiarism (that led to their permanent bans) for financial reasons, they would have not had chances to come back. Because if moderators look at post history, reported plagiarisms and see hidden financial reasons behind plagiarisms, they don't unban those ones.

Not sure for each case, but as I saw from ban appeals months ago, most of bans come from months, years ago plagiarism, that is another reason to think of their recently (30days before ban days) posts are likely not plagiarisms that motivated by their participation and post quota in campaigns.

I know some of them, whom unbanned, and they are good posters, in terms of above average post-quality, but there are still shit posters among them too.

[actmyname]

Statistics don't lie, but they may mislead our simple monkey brains.What if - hear me out on this - users posted less, yes, but as a result of the signature ban, they started posting more cautiously and in turn started posting higher-quality posts?

If we have a word + character count that might bring us some more insight into their posting habits. Limited data forces interpretation thereof which shows us correlation but not necessary causation.

[tranthidung]

Limited data forces interpretation thereof which shows us correlation but not necessary causation.

You can get it there:
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/
Viewing unedited posts and deleted posts
Note that there are break-period when LoyceV stopped scraping data for a while: LoyceV broke Bitcointalk - error on "recent" page

[The Cryptovator]

What if - hear me out on this - users posted less, yes, but as a result of the signature ban, they started posting more cautiously and in turn started posting higher-quality posts?

I don't think their post count is less due to high quality post. I have visited some of their post history but its seems like same as previous posting behaviour.

Whoever we are on signature campaign, we know very well that there is some requirement of post count. And that's the main reason of post count. Let's say some campaign has no minimum post requirement, but they are paying per post. So you are getting paid for posting. And usually you will think to increase your post count to get paid more. We can't hide real truth and we know everything about signature. That's why I am surprised that they are posting less due to ban. Because it's simple, they are not getting paid for their post and there is no minimum requirement. They are enjoying their freedom now.

[UserU]

Only one guy that went from 0 to 11. Impressive

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

This user @lovesmayfamilis irrespective of the signature ban is still very active in the scam accusation board bursting scam projects every now and then. He's still dedicating his time for the forum although his post has reduce a little bit he's still posting some high numbers of posts 100+  that's the only user I have encountered with him still producing construction and quality contributions on the forum.

@Suchmoon understandable this are just raw data which doesn't give us the full information of the users involvement on the forums since their ban. You're quite inform on what quality posts are or maybe a decent conversation so how about comparing their quality (before and after ban), merit earned (before and after ban) using same timeframe in the OP, this might give us more information on how effective the users have been.

[Coyster]

I think it's normal for a user to post slightly more when on a campaign, than when not, and this is most especially if the campaign has special requirements as regards some specific boards to post in, you must understand that if such users are off those campaigns, they would no longer go to those boards and it'll reduce their average number of posts.

As long as such users do not just disappear after leaving a campaign or incurring a signature ban, if they do so then they are the users we do not want, as they are fully here for what they can gain, not for what they can give in return.

[PrimeNumber7]

I am glad to see some people being able to continue participating in the community, who might be expected to be permanently removed, even if their participation declines.

I don’t think anyone can deny that signature campaigns have an effect on posting habits on a broad scale. I believe anyone who denies this is either naive, or is trying to push some kind of narrative. This is not to say that signature campaigns do not help the bitcoin economy because they do, especially the forum economy.

Anyone who has outright stopped posting after receiving a signature ban is probably a good candidate to be checked for ban evasion, and was more likely posting solely for the signature payment, which is not a benefit to the forum ecosystem. 

[eternalgloom]

It's truly amazing how many people are posting to these forums with pure financial incentive.

Yeah, it is.  I don't know how many times I've heard the "posting for pennies" thing from people when they're raging against shitposters, but it's not true--especially when bitcoin is above $10k.  It's not a small amount in some cases.  

I've used that phrase before, but never for people who participate with regular Bitcoin-based campaigns.
Bounty hunters who participate in altcoin campaigns do usually fit that description. They'll end up working weeks for something that's barely even worth anything in the end.
They're also the biggest spammers usually.

[Upgrade00]

I've used that phrase before, but never for people who participate with regular Bitcoin-based campaigns.
Bounty hunters who participate in altcoin campaigns do usually for that description. They'll end up working weeks for something that's barely even worth anything in the end.
They're also the biggest spammers usually.

This became quite evident very recently. At the boom of the ICO market when Bitcoin rallied to it's current all time high, there were lots of altcoin signatures whose payments were very substantial when they hit the market and even better a few weeks or months later. I can even think of some of the top of my head.

I can't speak for the altcoin market now, as I don't really participate or follow their discussions. But if the altcoin general value is anything to go by, it's not a very good period.

[LoyceV]

I can imagine a ban, apart from the loss of signature revenue, makes someone care less about the forum. As dumb as it sounds for some website on the internet, after spending several years here I'd really be hurt if it happened to me.

Wow, 229 shitposts to 0.

Xenrise was on my ignore list already, that's not a good sign for post quality. I'm surprised he qualified for a signature ban though, I thought unbans were reserved for people who make a net positive contribution to the forum, and I don't think someone who earned 1 Merit for a deleted post contributes much.

I really don't keep track of who's been banned and was actually surprised to see cellard, zazarb, and a couple of other members on that list.

Search for ". Legendary " (excluding quotes) on my A wave of bans-topic, you'll probably recognize many more names.

If being in a signature campaign means that someone made posts they wouldn't have made without the signature - that's not a good sign.

When I joined my first signature campaign, I had made 145 posts in 11.5 months. I didn't even expect to reach the minimum requirement of 50 posts per month. I was a Mod on the site at that time, and that's why I joined the campaign.
However, I started posting more, and if anything, knowing that guitarplinker checks my posts made me very aware of the need for quality.
It all boils down to the signature campaign manager: if someone is paying for spam, there'll always be someone willing to spam.