Temp Sig Bans please - For a new kind of Campaign

[The-One-Above-All]

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?

No that would be open to extreme criticism, you would need a strict set of criteria for this and evidence that each person has been matched against it equally for banning them or giving them a sig ban. This would all need to be transparent and also it would be essential ALL participants were measured equally against such criteria. This is how it should work for campaign managers anyway, the fact they can defer responsibility to the gamed metrics that DT control to ensure they themselves are the most eligible is LAUGHABLE and disgraceful. May explain why all DT members are spamming away chipmixer and other highly paid sigs LOL

I certainly would also take into account here that EVERY post here on this thread here is made by people that are intent of milking the board for the maximum they can. You can hardly miss the FACT most people here are financially motivated posters and would not be posting as much if they were not doing it "for the money"  hence a conflict of interests instantly arises.

Strict clear and transparent criteria for all members or forget the sig banning.

Ban all sigs for members and see who we have left after a couple of years.

Spam vs negative value specious arguments and statements = spam is less harmful really.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't mean a sig ban either, I mean ban from the forum for a minimum 30 days.

A signature ban and a real ban are practically the same thing for many of these members, who are only posting to get paid.  So I would certainly have no objections to not allowing them to use their sig space for advertising, at least for a while.  Then maybe they'll get the message (if they didn't already with your campaign ban) that they need to seriously improve. 

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.

Not a bad idea either.  Theymos shocked me when he did that with the Yobit participants last time, but I thought it was reasonable.  A lot of those folks had flooded the forum with more garbage than usual and I think they deserved what they got--and the punishment IMO was fair and not overly harsh.  Not all of the participants are shitposters, so going by the ones that were banned from Yahoo62278's campaign would be a good guideline on who ought to be held accountable.

[tranthidung]

A signature ban and a real ban are practically the same thing for many of these members, who are only posting to get paid.  So I would certainly have no objections to not allowing them to use their sig space for advertising, at least for a while.  Then maybe they'll get the message (if they didn't already with your campaign ban) that they need to seriously improve.  

LoyceV has a post or thread on users who get temp bans actively posting again after their bans finished (as I remembered). I think LoyceV has data on this, and things will become clearer if he can provide how many percent of old participants of past rounds of Yobit campaign join CryptoTalk.
From such data, I mean that temp bans don't play huge role on control spammers. They will abandon their accounts during ban period, or leave accounts in hypernation phase, but when something pay high, they will actively come back and make spam posts.

Not a bad idea either.  Theymos shocked me when he did that with the Yobit participants last time, but I thought it was reasonable.  A lot of those folks had flooded the forum with more garbage than usual and I think they deserved what they got--and the punishment IMO was fair and not overly harsh.  Not all of the participants are shitposters, so going by the ones that were banned from Yahoo62278's campaign would be a good guideline on who ought to be held accountable.

It shocked me too, but honestly I felt it is unfair somehow. Spam is spam, burst post is burspost no matter which campaigns users join and wear signatures when they spam or burst post. There are lots of spammers or burst posters who don't wear Yobit signature have not been temp banned.
It seems Yobit mades noise and people focused too much on them and their supporters months ago. Punishments are likely harsher for Yobit participants, but anyway it is the forum managed by theymos (and some others), so they have rights to do anything they want to keep it clean.

[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.

I don't get what you are talking about.

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

And I tell you that most of the participants of the current campaign didn't get banned before, because it's not the same people -or at least accounts- as the previous campaign.

[LoyceV]

LoyceV has a post or thread on users who get temp bans actively posting again after their bans finished (as I remembered). I think LoyceV has data on this

The number of people thinking I'm suchmoon is increasing He/she/plaguebot may have the same avatar and signature, it's still not me
You're looking for Effect of signature bans. By suchmoon

[Findingnemo]

snip
And I tell you that most of the participants of the current campaign didn't get banned before, because it's not the same people -or at least accounts- as the previous campaign.

AFAIK,if an account got removed by the yobit bot then it is not possible to enroll into their panel forever.

Surely there will be lot of good participants in yobit as well but you have to see what is happening by reading this Need Negative rating members for Signature Campaign (0.0024 BTC) per day!!.

People uses this an opportunity to make few buck before yahoo find out that spammer and scammer.

[Saint-loup]

It shocked me too, but honestly I felt it is unfair somehow. Spam is spam, burst post is burspost no matter which campaigns users join and wear signatures when they spam or burst post. There are lots of spammers or burst posters who don't wear Yobit signature have not been temp banned.
It seems Yobit mades noise and people focused too much on them and their supporters months ago. Punishments are likely harsher for Yobit participants, but anyway it is the forum managed by theymos (and some others), so they have rights to do anything they want to keep it clean.

You should take into account that the enrollment is automatic here, so it's not normal members who are participating, but mainly people who don't care about bitcointalk, they just want the bounty of the campaign.

[LoyceV]

Surely there will be lot of good participants in yobit as well

I wouldn't count on it: Look at suchmoon's thread: Out of the first 150 usernames, only 36 have more than 10 earned Merit, and only 11 have more than 50 Merit.
Although Merit alone doesn't provide conclusive evidence on individual post quality, I think it's pretty clear only a few (maybe 10%, probably less) of the participants have good posts. If the rest is eliminated just like they would have been eliminated in any other Bitcoin paying signature campaign, Yobit can actually end up with some good quality users.

[vlom]

Thoughts?

I dont like all paid sigs. but dont ban user just because one camp.-manager kicked them out. too much power in the hands of the camp-manager.

[FIFA worldcup]

Surely there will be lot of good participants in yobit as well

I wouldn't count on it: Look at suchmoon's thread: Out of the first 150 usernames, only 36 have more than 10 earned Merit, and only 11 have more than 50 Merit.
Although Merit alone doesn't provide conclusive evidence on individual post quality, I think it's pretty clear only a few (maybe 10%, probably less) of the participants have good posts. If the rest is eliminated just like they would have been eliminated in any other Bitcoin paying signature campaign, Yobit can actually end up with some good quality users.

I am really impressed by the numbers and stats shared by you and few other users on this forum. Just curious to know how you extract all this data ? Do u have some sort of scripts which automatically extract this data. If possible, you can start a new thread where you teach us how all this is done. 

[Findingnemo]

Surely there will be lot of good participants in yobit as well

I wouldn't count on it: Look at suchmoon's thread: Out of the first 150 usernames, only 36 have more than 10 earned Merit, and only 11 have more than 50 Merit.
Although Merit alone doesn't provide conclusive evidence on individual post quality, I think it's pretty clear only a few (maybe 10%, probably less) of the participants have good posts. If the rest is eliminated just like they would have been eliminated in any other Bitcoin paying signature campaign, Yobit can actually end up with some good quality users.

Last update of Suchmoon's was in 29th sep,now three days passed so atleast the figure of total participants were doubled by now (just my guess).

From that we may atleast filter 30-50 participants (just my guess as well).
I read something of cryptotalk now they also having rewards for posting on their website and 1 btc rewards for a person who make more number of post until end of this month.So this time also they were here to make short term buzz about cryptotalk.

[Welsh]

Although, the list does make it easier for us to see who's been identified to be spamming by the community that doesn't mean everyone on that list deserves a signature ban like Yahoo states. Every campaign is going to have different criteria, and some campaigns could potentially have stricter guidelines than the actual forum.

[Coyster]

I dont like all paid sigs

There's really nothing wrong with paid signatures, it's just like doing what one ordinarily does daily,  that's logging into the forum and 'discussing' with other users either about bitcoin, the forum, altcoins etc, but earning a little BTC in the process.But the problem is with some users, such as majority of them on that blacklist, who forgot the actual reason why such privilege was put in the first place, which is not to hinder the discussions, nor make them look 'stupid' due to the intent with which they now post, just to earn and not to corroborate the ideas of others in the discussion.

Yahoo's list may not be the most comprehensive, neither is he expecting other campaigns to simply buy into it, it just makes things easier and leaves us with the ease of looking into such users and making our own judgement.

[Mr. Big]

No need to sig ban those banned yobit participants, most of them will go back to hibernation once they found out they are banned from the campaign...

The effect of temp sig ban and temp ban has no difference, except if sig ban would be longer...

[suchmoon]

Instead of sig bans I would suggest to flip this around and require a small amount of earned merit (e.g. 2 merits in last 12 months) to display a signature, in addition to any existing rank requirements. This would take care of dormant farmed accounts (well, the crappiest of them anyway) and would leave enough room for campaigns to improvise with posting limits and other rules.

Yes, I know this has been suggested probably a million times before and is unlikely to happen. I can still dream though.

[hosseinimr93]

Fifteen posts a day spread out over 24 hours is burst posting? I used to post much more a few years ago without being in a signature campaign and that was fine?

Is there any reason why some are warned and others are straight up banned?

You had participated in a campaign which has hired yahoo62278 as quality checker. He checks the quality of posts and has the right to decide based on his own criteria. This is same as any other campaign in the forum which the manager has the right to remove any participant. In cryptotalk campaign, Yahoo62278 is not the manager, but he has the right to remove everyone as Yobit has asked him.
 
Here is Burst-posting definition by Yahoo62278

Burstposting definition- A person that makes a posts then 1-5 minutes later makes another, and another, and another. I will not add someone here for burstposting if they have 1 post right after another every once in awhile. Sometimes a person reads the forum and makes a reply, then sees another topic they have a constructive reply for, but if quite a few of your posts are 1 right after the other, then you'll find yourself here.

[tbct_mt2]

Edit: So after many people still actually spamming and not being banned, my guess is Yobit took on too many participants and now many are being banned at random to get the numbers down.

This is not a randomly ban on participants. A ban, if there is, comes from bad posts of participant and from strictly management of manager to check post quality, time between posts. Randomly bans mean outstanding posters can be banned randomly and arbitrarily. It does not make sense and not what the campaign under yahoo's management will go forward.

The previous campaign of Yobit went like this. Bad posters who wear Yobit signature and made spam, low quality, off-topic posts, then were reported by community, would consequently temporarily banned with disabled signature, too. Only made bad posts and reported, if not they were fine (without bans).

Self-spam, then indirectly self-ban. 

[gentlemand]

I doubt a formal sig ban is actually necessary. Most of these posters are so staggeringly hopeless they'll never get into any conventionally run campaign that has properly considered applications.

I would be looking into booting any campaign that had automated sign ups but I can see why that might be further than the folks running the forum want to go. All the same that's what breeds the drippiest shit.

[FIFA worldcup]

Instead of sig bans I would suggest to flip this around and require a small amount of earned merit (e.g. 2 merits in last 12 months) to display a signature, in addition to any existing rank requirements. This would take care of dormant farmed accounts (well, the crappiest of them anyway) and would leave enough room for campaigns to improvise with posting limits and other rules.

Yes, I know this has been suggested probably a million times before and is unlikely to happen. I can still dream though.

Maybe the Albert Einstein quote will motivate you and inspire you to keep on trying the good thing.

“I have tried 99 times and have failed, but on the 100th time came success.”

[Steamtyme]

No that would be open to extreme criticism, you would need a strict set of criteria for this and evidence that each person has been matched against it equally for banning them or giving them a sig ban. This would all need to be transparent and also it would be essential ALL participants were measured equally against such criteria.

I used that list as it was a running tally, of people currently banned from the campaign and many were still wearing the signature. Considering at the time I fell down a rabbit hole as one of the weak unhealthy ones wandered into a thread I was a part of. I then followed the grouped trail. While compiling proof and evidence before making wild accusations would find it to be wasted effort for a few. Obviously I don't expect the Admins to just take anybody's word for it.. sorry but we do still have to trust them... they can review the list against the reports submitted. There weren't many but all the posts I reported came back good.

We do know that good reports against users for spam, plagiarism, should count as proof they are violating the guidelines/rules everyone can see and should follow.

I certainly would also take into account here that EVERY post here on this thread here is made by people that are intent of milking the board for the maximum they can.

What milk are you looking for? I get it you don't like a lot of people but, that is a very broad stroke, which only detracts from your point. Stop using a paint roller when a brush will do.

Personally I felt a Ban would be harsh. A sig ban to most of these users is like a fine. Worse yet like being suspended from work. I'm not on the frontlines managing these folks, so I can only imagine what Yahoo sees in a week especially now. So I understand why he may want to up the anti, I just like to see progressive steps. Like losing your monetization but having the ability to participate. Not everyone will, but  a full on Ban can detract the few that might.  I have no idea what information about this campaign and it's total participants is out there, but I'm thinking this is one of the largest Campaigns ever run on the forum, by number of users.

It was just a thought. Seeing as nothing has happened in regards to this. The problem must not be anywhere near as bad as it seems.