Temp Sig Bans please - For a new kind of Campaign

[Steamtyme]

Now before people show up with their pitchforks calling for a forum wide Ban, or rotten tomatoes because they lost their job this week. I would like to request Temp Sig Bans for anyone on the Banned list.
List of banned participants in the Cryptotalk Campaign

Nothing crazy, or go crazy what do I care. This will help in clearing a lot of Sig spam from the forum for one. - The rest of the benefits really are for anyone trying to identify current spammers, or assist in monitoring this campaign. By imposing a Sig ban on these members peolpe will no longer have to double check over and over if they are on the list. It won't interfere with anyone not spamming the forum strictly for the money. Thoughts?

[1714035929]

1714035929

[1714035929]

1714035929

[1714035929]

1714035929

[1714035929]

1714035929

[crwth]

I think that's a great idea. At least the posters themselves will have an idea of what happened if they are spamming/burst posting/etc.

As I read the topic a while ago, a lot has been added to the lists, so it should be continuously checked. Temp sig bans would be enough for the spam posters, but those who woke up and changed passwords would be in a different case, IMO.

[Steamtyme]

Temp sig bans would be enough for the spam posters, but those who woke up and changed passwords would be in a different case, IMO.

Well I do recall some of the cryptios team had been preemptively locking suspicious activity accounts. Iirc at least 1 legitimate account owner got caught up in it due to password and email changes.. Can't recall will have to look it up. I'm just thinking there are options available, that still seem to be within the forums general way of doing things.
Edit: Here's what I was thinking about. I would still expect research and investigation before just a blind action in this matter.

Well spotted! It appears that this account has indeed changed hands as the email address was changed on July 22, 2017, alongside with posting and IP patterns. I've now locked it! In the meantime, DT members can go ahead and paint it red until (and if) we determine the real owner.

Thank you for bringing this up!

[yahoo62278]

I'm not sure if everyone on the list deserves a sig ban, but I for sure would like to see EVERY single user who has been banned for Spam/Burstposting receive a ban. I don't mean a sig ban either, I mean ban from the forum for a minimum 30 days. Then impose a 6 month-1 year sig ban as well.

Those particular users showed 0 respect for Bitcointalk or the rules of the forum. They chased the dollar. Just my thoughts, theymos and the staff are going to do what they feel is best.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Well, here we go. I have been advocating for some attention to be given to the signature section of the forum by the adminstrators. Using this users as scapegoat would set a perfect example to other, as this will send a clear message to signature spammers. I second the suggestion.

In my opinion, temporary signature ban between 6-24 months would do just the trick, they're always welcome to participate on the forum, if they can amend their ways.

[Steamtyme]

I'm not sure if everyone on the list deserves a sig ban

I was only thinking something like a week, a bit of a tap to rethink their motivation here. While showing how easily you can piss away the opportunity. I imagine for a Ban to take place it would come aftr users go back and report all posts they report to you. I've left mine until you added users to the list.

Well, here we go. I have been advocating for some attention to be given to the signature section of the forum by the adminstrators. Using this users as scapegoat would set a perfect example to other. As this will send a clear message to signs spammers. I second the suggestion.@Yahoo, don't think it'll be justifiable if we ban them from the forum, In my opinion, temporary signature ban between 6-24 months would do just the trick, they're always welcome if they can amend their ways.

I'm not looking for any overhaul to the current on forum Signature Camapaign dynamic. I think it operates fairly well. This is different, anyone Sr. Member and above gets in. It's only after Yahoo bans them do they lose their pay, and there are a lot of people joining. I'm also not looking to scapegoat anyone, this is targeted only at users violating forum poilicies/guidelines.

[LoyceV]

I don't expect all of them to be banned, but it would be nice if a Mod can at least review all listed accounts.
I've made long lists of abusers in the past, but those were mainly low-ranking accounts that could be Nuked by most Mods.

[khaled0111]

I dont't think it is a good idea.
By sig-banning them, you deprive them from their right to join another campaign or to promote their own business just because they were removed from the Yobit campaign which is based ,only, on yahoo's judgement (with all due respect to yahoo).

[Steamtyme]

Well I believe there will be a decent amount of space taken up on the modlog that will back up Yahoo's opinion. I do hope everyone is reporting posts after notifying Yahoo, so that we are also clearing the boards as well. If you are getting removed from a campaign for Sig-spamming/burst posting solely for profit, you don't deserve the privilege not right.

[Saint-loup]

I agree with yahoo, many of these accounts seem to be farmed, bought or hacked accounts, so they should be banned for several weeks at least to drain the swamp...

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I dont't think it is a good idea.
By sig-banning them, you deprive them from their right to join another campaign or to promote their own business just because they were removed from the Yobit campaign which is based ,only, on yahoo's judgement (with all due respect to yahoo).

Their offenses are declared openly therefore anyone can review this to confirm they deserve to be blacklisted. They were causing a nuisance by spamming the forum. Only those accused of spamming on the list would be affected by the way. The other offenses like, not wearing right signature and personal text or not been eligible for the campaign aren't punishable by the adminstrators.

Consider the list to be a recommendation from @Yahoo just as when you report a post and the moderators take action. He's the manager and have complied a list of those he felt are abusing the privilege now it's left for the offenders to be review and punished based on the suggestion by the OP. Those in question here are just the spammers.

[yahoo62278]

I dont't think it is a good idea.
By sig-banning them, you deprive them from their right to join another campaign or to promote their own business just because they were removed from the Yobit campaign which is based ,only, on yahoo's judgement (with all due respect to yahoo).

Yes I agree that most of the users are based on my opinion, but you are free to look up everyone on that list and see if you form a different opinion. My guess is you would agree with most of them.

[khaled0111]

My guess is you would agree with most of them.

In fact I agree with most of them and deep inside I wish they all get a perma-ban.
My point here is that not all their offenses deserve the same sentence.

If mods are going to take action against them, then it should be on a case by case basis.
You already made it easier for mods by adding the reason behind the ban 

[abel1337]

My guess is you would agree with most of them.

In fact I agree with most of them and deep inside I wish they all get a perma-ban.
My point here is that not all their offenses deserve the same sentence.

If mods are going to take action against them, then it should be on a case by case basis.
You already made it easier for mods by adding the reason behind the ban 

Yes its better if they provide a punishment depending on the case that the offender did.

We know that everyone of us isnt perfect to abide the forum rules, But if the offense is so hard like post bursting, In my jurisdiction they should recieve a signature ban and a redtrust. On plagiarism case , It should be obvious that they should recieve permanent ban in this forum. Another situation is off topic or wrong grammar statements, I believe that they should get a warning strikes before banning on something.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

But if the offense is so hard like post bursting, In my jurisdiction they should recieve a signature ban and a redtrust.

Another situation is off topic or wrong grammar statements, I believe that they should get a warning strikes before banning on something.

You don't leave trust feedbacks based on posting habit, feedbacks are for trust related issue like scams etc. On the issue of wrong gramma, not everyone on the forum has english as their official or first language and since the forum doesn't host all local board for them to communicate in, you can't be too hard on them for trying to communicate with a language that isn't theirs as there will always be room for mistakes.

Although when this mistakes are repeatedly too obvious that it totally changes the meaning of the information they were trying to pass across, turning it into a spam then giving them a time out to go work on their english isn't such a bad idea.

[dothebeats]

Temporary signature bans are somewhat a bit of a light punishment for people abusing campaigns and chasing profits rather than contribute to the quality of discussions found within this forum. What I suggest is we retain the 30-day ban for spammers and if they repeat the same kind of half-assed effort they were doing in order to get paid from campaigns, impose a permanent ban on their accounts. This is a no-brainer, considering the fact that a lot of people in here are trying their best efforts to report spammy posts and users in order to keep the forum clean and free from eyesore posts made by users who are just in it for the pay, not the discussion and the very essence of a forum.

[tbct_mt2]

Temp ban or not, and how long temp ban lasts will depend on which rules of the forum they don't obey, and how severe of rule disobeyment they did.
Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)
There are lots of rules which spam-/ shit-posters don't obey, such as burst posting.

Burst posting happens with many campaigns that are not managed by good managers. If participants of other campaigns don't get temp ban for burst posting (I think some of them are temporarily banned, but not all of them), and their corresponding bans depend on their speed of burst posting and how many burst-posts they did.

Days ago, I saw someone complained about 30-day temp-ban as consequence of spam PMs (Sorry BitcoinFX, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages). That temp-ban period is very different between cases, depend on themselves and moderators who are responsible for those cases.
Hhampuz, months ago, was only temporarily ban for 7-days.

23. When deciding if a user has broken the rules, the staff have the right to follow their interpretation of the rules.[e]

There are likely some special solutions, what we already saw months ago with Yobit campaign, when theymos made temp-bans on Yobit-supporters who were reported from their bad posts. Not sure what will happen this time with Crypto Talk.

[Findingnemo]

Days ago, I saw someone complained about 30-day temp-ban as consequence of spam PMs (Sorry BitcoinFX, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages). That temp-ban period is very different between cases, depend on themselves and moderators who are responsible for those cases.
Hhampuz, months ago, was only temporarily ban for 7-days.

It depends on the moderator or admin handling that report,I saw somewhere that one global mod has the habit of issuing 10,20 and 30 days ban instead of common 7,14 and 30 days temp ban.They also have power to change ban if they feel it was in appropriate.

So this is the second time if there will be a ban for them so it will be most likely more longer than the first one for yobit related signature.

[Saint-loup]

So this is the second time if there will be a ban for them so it will be most likely more longer than the first one for yobit related signature.

Where did you see it was the same members as the previous campaign?
Most of the participants of the previous campaign have been tagged by IconFirm/blurryeyed, and I'm sorry but I don't see any trust feed back from IconFirm/blurryeyed on the profile of the current participants. In fact, I think there is really much more people this time.

[Findingnemo]

So this is the second time if there will be a ban for them so it will be most likely more longer than the first one for yobit related signature.

Where did you see it was the same members as the previous campaign?
Most of the participants of the previous campaign have been tagged by IconFirm/blurryeyed, and I'm sorry but I don't see any trust feed back from IconFirm/blurryeyed on the profile of the current participants. In fact, I think there is really much more people this time.

I don't get what you are talking about.

I mentioned about their signature got banned by admin earlier which happened few months earlier.