Why don't you stop SPAMMERS yourself, admins? #RaiseYourVoice

[2double0]

When you have the balls and you know you have got mods to spread them in, why don't you give these moderators the power to limit these spammers from posting in the boards they spam in?

Simple, let's say if a spammer posts too many shitposts in gambling area of the forum just because of the specified limits to be reached to get paid from the signature campaign he/she is enrolled in, why to ban them or their signature? Why not just take such board/s/ off-limits to these spammers? How will they post there then? And once removed from the campaign, do you think they will actively participate in other areas of the forum? Keeping a list of all spammers who are limited from posting in specific areas will also help moderators to give you a final report while such users have spammed in the remaining boards they were allowed to post in or not, and then you decide whether to ban these users or to allow them to post again in those limited areas on the basis of their posting behavior.

[1714176746]

1714176746

[1714176746]

1714176746

[1714176746]

1714176746

[Bttzed03]

The example is aimed at signature participants required to post in the gambling section but what if a user is wearing a signature from bounty with no restricted boards?

Maintaining a list also is a lot of work. Rather than limiting users from posting in a particular board like gambling, would it not be easier to just disable the signature there?

[Coyster]

How do we know the exact board the spammers are spamming in, this would be way too difficult, keeping track of a poster to know the board they spam in, it's far much easier to report their spam posts and when it gets out of hand, get them nuked or temporary banned.

Rather than limiting users from posting in a particular board like gambling, would it not be easier to just disable the signature there?

What if the spammer isn't on a signature, not all spammers are on signature campaigns, the current "reporting of spam posts to the moderator" is working quite well in my opinion, you must also accept the fact that no method would provide an absolute solution.

[hosseinimr93]

why don't you give these moderators the power to limit these spammers from posting in the boards they spam in?

I guess moderators have the power to ban any user from posting on any board.
Few days ago, Franky1 was banned from posting on "Development & Technical Discussion" board.

Here is the proof
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192937.0

[DiamondCardz]

Tried to post earlier but my connection to the forums went down. This is what I wrote (before hosseinimr addressed that franky1 had been banned from a section):

People have been banned from sections before. franky1 was recently banned from the Development & Technical Discussion section although this was not due to spam but due to other concerns.

I think this would work well, there would have to be a system implemented for it which is automatic rather than what seems to be the current system of deleting posts as-and-when they're seen. I will note that it seems that the staff team is a bit overloaded at the minute, I think from what I've seen that they're down a couple Global Mods and no-one has been promoted to fill the gaps yet? Might be wrong. A system like this along with the existing system of signature bans could help to cut down on spam a lot.

[Bttzed03]

Rather than limiting users from posting in a particular board like gambling, would it not be easier to just disable the signature there?

What if the spammer isn't on a signature, not all spammers are on signature campaigns, the current "reporting of spam posts to the moderator" is working quite well in my opinion, you must also accept the fact that no method would provide an absolute solution.

Of course spam can still happen with or without signature but the chances of users, w/ no sig, spamming a board is less compared to users getting paid through their signature.

I also don't remember saying my suggestion as an absolute solution.

[UserU]

The example is aimed at signature participants required to post in the gambling section but what if a user is wearing a signature from bounty with no restricted boards?

Maintaining a list also is a lot of work. Rather than limiting users from posting in a particular board like gambling, would it not be easier to just disable the signature there?

It'd be too much work for every campaign to have their sig conditions tweaked.

That's why the campaign manager has to go thru every participant's post.

[YOSHIE]

why don't you give these moderators the power to limit these spammers from posting in the boards they spam in?

Spam is not moderated, it is done by humans with no rules, meaning that the important post is the post there is no interest in reading everything that will be discussed.

why to ban them or their signature?

Campaign companies spend money to pay to participants who advertise, so it's natural for every manager to ban spam participants for campaign success.

Why not just take such board/s/ off-limits to these spammers?

Forums are not for spam, forums for discussion about crypto like Bitcoin.
Spam is not desirable, spam comes alone like a pest, of course pests have poison to eradicate, so there's no need for a spam-specific board.

How will they post there then?

No one forbids every member posting, one way, Report and delete, beautiful finish isn't it.

And once removed from the campaign, do you think they will actively participate in other areas of the forum?

no one thinks for them, it's up to their hearts to drink where, Local, Economy, Meta, Cryptocurrency.
Which is important in human nature and character has shame, bored, lazy, and arrogant.

[2double0]

I need admins to show up with a response here.  
Anyways, some of you who are against my thinking need to understand that either way a spammer spams a board, he/she should be banned from posting there 'so to completely stop them from posting shit there' because there are several reasons like:

# This will work as a first warning for those spammers to stop posting shit elsewhere and improve themselves or get their signature or even themselves banned.

# If these spammers watch a manager asking for a specific board posters for his campaign, they start posting shit without knowledge in those boards spamming just to get accepted in that campaign which never happens.

[UmerIdrees]

When you have the balls and you know you have got mods to spread them in, why don't you give these moderators the power to limit these spammers from posting in the boards they spam in?

Simple, let's say if a spammer posts too many shitposts in gambling area of the forum just because of the specified limits to be reached to get paid from the signature campaign he/she is enrolled in, why to ban them or their signature? Why not just take such board/s/ off-limits to these spammers? How will they post there then? And once removed from the campaign, do you think they will actively participate in other areas of the forum? Keeping a list of all spammers who are limited from posting in specific areas will also help moderators to give you a final report while such users have spammed in the remaining boards they were allowed to post in or not, and then you decide whether to ban these users or to allow them to post again in those limited areas on the basis of their posting behavior.

This idea is not practical and have too many loop holes. Rules should be precise so that they cannot be challenged.

"Report to moderator" function is already there for such type of users. If you see a shit posts in gambling section, press that button.

[Lucius]

I guess moderators have the power to ban any user from posting on any board.
Few days ago, Franky1 was banned from posting on "Development & Technical Discussion" board.

Moderators do not have the power to ban any user from any board, and if you read carefully it's not about ban of a specific user, but that mod says that any message from that user will be deleted. So he can post on that board, but as soon as the moderator sees the post, it will be deleted.

When you have the balls and you know you have got mods to spread them in, why don't you give these moderators the power to limit these spammers from posting on the boards they spam in?

If you ban some users from the Gambling board because he is making too much spam, such users will just move to some other board. In my opinion, it is much better to give a temporary ban under the rules already in place. The problem is that the amount of spam is too large and that the number of moderators is still too small to quickly and efficiently keep everything under control.

[Findingnemo]

Merit system was introduced to fight spam which was worse in the past years but now things changing only problem is bounty spammers who had no moderation while enrolled into a campaign.I guess the next step towards fight spam will be disable signature from bitcointalk this is already mentioned by theymos when merit system was introduced.

[target]

This idea is not practical and have too many loop holes. Rules should be precise so that they cannot be challenged.

"Report to moderator" function is already there for such type of users. If you see a shit posts in gambling section, press that button.

There's your option right there. The button.

BTC casinos specifically target the gambling section because its where the traffic are from for them to make money out of it. That is the purpose of this marketing campaign they are doing. Don't get those guys under your skin, its what they do. If they can't buy an advertising spot in the forum, campaign is probably cheaper option for them than just buying an ad here.

[2double0]

why to ban them or their signature?

Campaign companies spend money to pay to participants who advertise, so it's natural for every manager to ban spam participants for campaign success.

For God sake, please read first and then reply.
I never said that managers need to ban or unban participants who spam, but the mods here need to do that if given the power.

Everyone who thinks that "Report to moderator" does the right job? Even some reports go failed because what's wrong in my views, may be correct in other's opinions as everyone has a different point of view and while I'm asking for a temp ban of a specific area a user spams in, the simple logic behind it is to let that user learn about his mistake and not to repeat it. Then the admins should go for temp ban whether it'd be signature based or posting ability and if the behavior remains the same, permaban that user forever.

[Findingnemo]

Everyone who thinks that "Report to moderator" does the right job? Even some reports go failed because what's wrong in my views, may be correct in other's opinions as everyone has a different point of view and while I'm asking for a temp ban of a specific area a user spams in, the simple logic behind it is to let that user learn about his mistake and not to repeat it. Then the admins should go for temp ban whether it'd be signature based or posting ability and if the behavior remains the same, permaban that user forever.

If someone got lot of reports against them then they will be banned temporarily from forum so asking the specif board ban is like reducing their punishment.But not sure how many reports needed to issue the temp ban but when someone continuously doing it then they are getting banned but we may not aware of it since the temp ban doesn't disable the signatures.

[Harlot]

This will just violate their freedom of speech and it's really not one of the necessary change for them to improve. Banning them or prohibiting them to certain topics and sections won't give them a chance to start improving their posts, so I think what we should instead strive for to do is to heavily enforce on reporting low quality posts and spam so that these spammers will know that the forum doesn't accept and welcome these kinds of low quality content and they will be starting themselves to try and improve their post quality.

[YOSHIE]

but the mods here need to do that if given the power.

Something should be done about blatant abuses but nothing likely will. Theymos is probably too busy to investigate and I don't think cyrus has the powers to remove it (though I could be wrong, but he'll also likely be too busy to do so). I've suggested before some restrictions should be put in place like maybe a user can only leave one feedback per day on a user (or maybe even longer - week, month etc). They can still edit the feedback with any additional updates but there's probably not many good reasons why people should be able to spam a users trust. I've had one on my hilariousandco account who went on a spamming spree in the past removed but the huge feedback from steamproject advertising his scammy torrent invites sales is still there despite requesting it to be removed. Other such instances like yours should also be removed but I doubt it's a priority for the admins right now sadly.

Apparently you do not understand what you are proposing, I am not sure your efforts in fighting spam will give good results.
I think your idea has been counted in the hundredth time.

I will invite you to return to hosting the era of 2018.

Topic: The core of Bitcointalk's spam problem

Topic: Trust spam report + suggestion

I hope this can be the last time you care about spam.

[2double0]

This will just violate their freedom of speech and it's really not one of the necessary change for them to improve. Banning them or prohibiting them to certain topics and sections won't give them a chance to start improving their posts, so I think what we should instead strive for to do is to heavily enforce on reporting low quality posts and spam so that these spammers will know that the forum doesn't accept and welcome these kinds of low quality content and they will be starting themselves to try and improve their post quality.

Freedom of speech, heh? Are you mad?
They spam a specific board without having any knowledge or just do repetitive posts without watching whether OP has got the answer they looked for or not, so stopping them doing so will steal their freedom of speech? Well I don't think like that. If you are in a sport "let's take Soccer for example", if you don't play good at all as a front forward but still want to remain at that place, while your coach knows that you're good at goal keeping which is completely the opposite of what you are wanting to do, he can and will replace you from that place to make you goalie to save his team's front forward position.

Apparently you do not understand what you are proposing, I am not sure your efforts in fighting spam will give good results.
I think your idea has been counted in the hundredth time.

...snip...

Like hilariousetc, I would say I can be wrong here but in all senses, I know what I'm doing as well as proposing.

I hope this can be the last time you care about spam.

Nope, sorry because my fight against spam is in my own way and this is a new beginning, not towards an end so early. I will not stop doing it until these spammers just stop spamming or get out of the forum, and as I am not expecting any rewards for this I think I'm doing it right. That's my choice and before you speak about earnings from my signature, wait for something I'll be up with.

[Wexnident]

"Report to moderator" function is already there for such type of users. If you see a shit posts in gambling section, press that button.

This is already the answer the forum best can give. Managing spam on the entire forum with only a small list of mods is very difficult and I doubt they would even search for such spam willingly. Just the amount of replies a thread can be astounding already, what more the countless parts of the forums here.
Besides, most spammers are just newbies accounts and wouldn't even think twice of creating another if they get banned. This just makes it an endless process and seems useless to do so they might as well just let users report spams they see and mods would then take action then and there.

[UserU]

Freedom of speech, heh? Are you mad?
They spam a specific board without having any knowledge or just do repetitive posts without watching whether OP has got the answer they looked for or not, so stopping them doing so will steal their freedom of speech? Well I don't think like that. If you are in a sport "let's take Soccer for example", if you don't play good at all as a front forward but still want to remain at that place, while your coach knows that you're good at goal keeping which is completely the opposite of what you are wanting to do, he can and will replace you from that place to make you goalie to save his team's front forward position.

If you read the OP's post history, you're dealing with a signature spammer himself.

[cryptoaddictchie]

Freedom of speech, heh? Are you mad?
They spam a specific board without having any knowledge or just do repetitive posts without watching whether OP has got the answer they looked for or not, so stopping them doing so will steal their freedom of speech? Well I don't think like that. If you are in a sport "let's take Soccer for example", if you don't play good at all as a front forward but still want to remain at that place, while your coach knows that you're good at goal keeping which is completely the opposite of what you are wanting to do, he can and will replace you from that place to make you goalie to save his team's front forward position.

If you read the OP's post history, you're dealing with a signature spammer himself.

Just because his wearing signature doesn't mean his a spammer already. Yes signature often required members to post as many as they can due to signature. But, there are some people posting but instill the quality of posting.

Also, the members here is bit more versus the mods that can handle every section and boards.

Gambling section is one of the example of signature requirement  section for btc paid campaigns. Well I guess those participants have no choice but to post right? But there is mode to make sure those participants are still with the same topics on this board. If not, Just report to moderator or probably his post will be deleted.

[2double0]

If you read the OP's post history, you're dealing with a signature spammer himself.

Ahhh it feels too bad when you are trying to deal with the bad and then you're yourself pictured as bad by some like this guy UserU. I've got something here for you that I saved earlier during noon:



Got that, sucker? I don't know what has made people like you so intensely jealous when we want something good for the forum. You want me to spam? Well I will show up with something nobody else would have done before, I promise you that.

Please go to all the previous signature campaign sheets I have been into, you can also ask managers why I was removed. It was never due to spam as I never did it, I was removed because I had been inactive mostly. Anyways, a thread is up for you if you believe that I spammed -

Did I spam? Report me right now. #RMRN #RaiseYourVoice

[UserU]

...

FYI, the "OP" was directed at Harlot, not you. So I was NOT referring to you.

Seems there has been some misunderstanding.

[2double0]

...

FYI, the "OP" was directed at Harlot, not you. So I was NOT referring to you.

Seems there has been some misunderstanding.

Thank you so much for clearing this up. Now FYI, OP means Original Post made by the thread starter, so next time please learn more about the abbreviation you are using before you shoot it. And thank you again because your word 'spammer' (though not referred to me) has lit up my insane obsession to come up with a lot of things that could help the forum in one way or the other and I will now do everything I can to remove this word 'spammer' from the forum completely.

[UserU]

Thank you so much for clearing this up. Now FYI, OP means Original Post made by the thread starter, so next time please learn more about the abbreviation you are using before you shoot it. And thank you again because your word 'spammer' (though not referred to me) has lit up my insane obsession to come up with a lot of things that could help the forum in one way or the other and I will now do everything I can to remove this word 'spammer' from the forum completely.

No hard feelings, glad we got it cleared up. I should have phrased it better.

Appreciate if you could edit the previous post to avoid further misunderstanding between the rest..

[acroman08]

...

FYI, the "OP" was directed at Harlot, not you. So I was NOT referring to you.

Seems there has been some misunderstanding.

Thank you so much for clearing this up. Now FYI, OP means Original Post made by the thread starter, so next time please learn more about the abbreviation you are using before you shoot it. And thank you again because your word 'spammer' (though not referred to me) has lit up my insane obsession to come up with a lot of things that could help the forum in one way or the other and I will now do everything I can to remove this word 'spammer' from the forum completely.

it seems it was just a misunderstanding and the issue has been resolved between the two of you and no one is actually accusing you of spamming, I guess it's time to lock or delete the thread you created.
link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5194601.0

[Pmalek]

Since you are specifically talking about posts in the gambling section it is important to mention that usually only BTC campaigns (casinos, sportsbooks) require users to post there. Those campaigns are managed by a handful of managers who check the posts and if they consider them to be spam they will not be counted. The reputation and the future in BTC campaigns of the participants is also at stake so they will think twice whether to spam or not.

Altcoin campaigns have in most cases no reason to look for visibility in the gambling section unless they are also a casino for example. Altcoin signature campaigns is where the most spam comes from. If you were to ban them from posting in one area they will just go to the next one since altcoin campaigns don't have many posting limitations that I am aware of. 

[2double0]

it seems it was just a misunderstanding and the issue has been resolved between the two of you and no one is actually accusing you of spamming, I guess it's time to lock or delete the thread you created.
link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5194601.0

Why should I delete that thread? Are you scared to take part in it?  
His comment was not the only reason why I made that post, but there are several reasons. One of them is: I have always learnt that when we fight for something especially involving justice, we should never be partial to anybody and significantly ourselves ' you know you'd think that you're not criminal even if you've committed a crime because you are partial to yourself to save yourself'. I am not that type of person, if you believe I spammed and I deserve to be removed from the campaign or forum or get a signature ban and the only way you think, to get it done is 'Report to Moderator', do it instead of going my way.

For your convenience, I will be changing the content of OP of that thread so not to accuse UserU of anything in that thread but I'll not edit it here so we may have an example of misunderstanding and how it gets cleared.

Since you are specifically talking about posts in the gambling section it is important to mention that usually only BTC campaigns (casinos, sportsbooks) require users to post there.

I never targeted users specifically posting in gambling but used that board as an example to show how someone tries to spam in a specific area just to reach their minimum posts number.

[acroman08]

it seems it was just a misunderstanding and the issue has been resolved between the two of you and no one is actually accusing you of spamming, I guess it's time to lock or delete the thread you created.
link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5194601.0

Why should I delete that thread? Are you scared to take part in it?  
His comment was not the only reason why I made that post, but there are several reasons. One of them is: I have always learnt that when we fight for something especially involving justice, we should never be partial to anybody and significantly ourselves ' you know you'd think that you're not criminal even if you've committed a crime because you are partial to yourself to save yourself'. I am not that type of person, if you believe I spammed and I deserve to be removed from the campaign or forum or get a signature ban and the only way you think, to get it done is 'Report to Moderator', do it instead of going my way.

For your convenience, I will be changing the content of OP of that thread so not to accuse UserU of anything in that thread but I'll not edit it here so we may have an example of misunderstanding and how it gets cleared.

Since you are specifically talking about posts in the gambling section it is important to mention that usually only BTC campaigns (casinos, sportsbooks) require users to post there.

I never targeted users specifically posting in gambling but used that board as an example to show how someone tries to spam in a specific area just to reach their minimum posts number.

there is already a thread where you can report spammers(I assume you already knew about it?) and creating another one even if it is just to specifically report your spam is unnecessary.
like I said earlier no one is claiming that you are a spammer and it was just a misunderstanding between the two of you.

[LTU_btc]

I think your idea looks a bit complicated and you're trying to invent a bike. I know about what kind of users you're talking about, but in general they aren't breaking forum rules. If you see them spamming, just use report button and mods will delete their posts. Banning users from specific board will mean that spammers just would move somewhere else. Maybe it would be better idea to disable signature of user if significant number of his posts were deleted?

I guess moderators have the power to ban any user from posting on any board.
Few days ago, Franky1 was banned from posting on "Development & Technical Discussion" board.

Here is the proof
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192937.0

This is new thing for me. Is it exclusive case, or there was more users who were banned from specific boards in past?

[Harlot]

~snip~

Freedom of speech, heh? Are you mad?
They spam a specific board without having any knowledge or just do repetitive posts without watching whether OP has got the answer they looked for or not, so stopping them doing so will steal their freedom of speech? Well I don't think like that. If you are in a sport "let's take Soccer for example", if you don't play good at all as a front forward but still want to remain at that place, while your coach knows that you're good at goal keeping which is completely the opposite of what you are wanting to do, he can and will replace you from that place to make you goalie to save his team's front forward position.

I'm not mad, I'm just thinking about it clearly and fairly for them. So you think banning them would be a good solution for them? Can't you see by going into that method you are just not giving them a chance to improve on themselves? At least when their posts gets deleted frequently it can serve as a wake up call that what they are posting are shit. Limiting them on certain boards wold make it unappealing for them to visit boards that they are restricted to post and they aren't even given the chance to be part of the conversation.

[DiamondCardz]

This will just violate their freedom of speech and it's really not one of the necessary change for them to improve. Banning them or prohibiting them to certain topics and sections won't give them a chance to start improving their posts, so I think what we should instead strive for to do is to heavily enforce on reporting low quality posts and spam so that these spammers will know that the forum doesn't accept and welcome these kinds of low quality content and they will be starting themselves to try and improve their post quality.

Freedom of speech to spam up a private forum, are you serious mate? No-one has any rights to communicate on a private platform, they have to abide by certain guidelines in order to participate here. One of those guidelines is to not post garbage on a regular basis and to actually contribute something to the discussions they respond to. Spamming is a serious problem right now.

[Harlot]

This will just violate their freedom of speech and it's really not one of the necessary change for them to improve. Banning them or prohibiting them to certain topics and sections won't give them a chance to start improving their posts, so I think what we should instead strive for to do is to heavily enforce on reporting low quality posts and spam so that these spammers will know that the forum doesn't accept and welcome these kinds of low quality content and they will be starting themselves to try and improve their post quality.

Freedom of speech to spam up a private forum, are you serious mate? No-one has any rights to communicate on a private platform, they have to abide by certain guidelines in order to participate here. One of those guidelines is to not post garbage on a regular basis and to actually contribute something to the discussions they respond to. Spamming is a serious problem right now.

You might took what I'm saying in the wrong way but I'm not in favor of the spam happening around the forum yet do we really need to ban them just to get rid of the spam? Don't we have a better way of removing it at the same time not removing the members' right to post on boards where they are interested in it? I know that most of these members are just posting to earn money and they aren't interested in the topic at all but does that mean that they don't deserve the chance to improve and act accordingly?

[actmyname]

You might took what I'm saying in the wrong way but I'm not in favor of the spam happening around the forum yet do we really need to ban them just to get rid of the spam? Don't we have a better way of removing it at the same time not removing the members' right to post on boards where they are interested in it?

Suppose you have an individual who has been known to spam.

Their posts are worthless and for the past couple hundred posts, someone has been reporting literally all of them.
These posts are removed. The user continues to post. The posts are continually reported.

Such is the case when it comes to the top users of my farm suppression list.

How many of them do you think improved their quality?
How many of them do you think simply stopped posting?

I'm not going to tell you the answer to the first... but just know that from what I've seen so far, it's a single-digit number.

[2double0]

You might took what I'm saying in the wrong way but I'm not in favor of the spam happening around the forum yet do we really need to ban them just to get rid of the spam? Don't we have a better way of removing it at the same time not removing the members' right to post on boards where they are interested in it? I know that most of these members are just posting to earn money and they aren't interested in the topic at all but does that mean that they don't deserve the chance to improve and act accordingly?

Well, give me a number of users or show me examples that how many of the users we are talking about, have actually shown any signs of improvement? Leave that part and tell me something,

HOW MANY CHANCES DO YOU WANT FROM THE FORUM?
WHY SHOULD YOU BE IGNORED AND LEFT IF YOU ARE CONTINUOUSLY POSTING SHIT AND DOING IT JUST TO GET YOUR SIGNATURE QUOTA REACHED?

The proposal I presented here, has been made taking a lot of things into consideration and one of them is that a user will be warned at extreme by being banned from posting in a board if he spams there. Tell me something man, if you have interest in something, will you talk shit about it? So the opposite goes as, if you talk shit about something, should I take it as you have a lot of interest and knowledge of that thing you are talking about? No. If you have interest in a board, you would rather contribute than making shit posts because then, there is no chance that you will spam. Spammers are those who don't know anything about the topic they are speaking on, but they just do the 'blah-blah' thing and continue doing it until they are sig-banned or permabanned from the forum. I think the best way to give them a chance is to stop them from spamming in those boards where they do it and warn them that if they continue to do it in other boards too, they will either get their sig banned or they will themselves get banned from the forum, while also giving an amount of days like 60-90-120 days (you guys decide) till the board ban is applicable and that's when you will be able to either improve or get kicked from the forum if you completely stop posting or don't improve and continue to spam.

[PryptoMontreal]

When you have the balls and you know you have got mods to spread them in, why don't you give these moderators the power to limit these spammers from posting in the boards they spam in?

Simple, let's say if a spammer posts too many shitposts in gambling area of the forum just because of the specified limits to be reached to get paid from the signature campaign he/she is enrolled in, why to ban them or their signature? Why not just take such board/s/ off-limits to these spammers? How will they post there then? And once removed from the campaign, do you think they will actively participate in other areas of the forum? Keeping a list of all spammers who are limited from posting in specific areas will also help moderators to give you a final report while such users have spammed in the remaining boards they were allowed to post in or not, and then you decide whether to ban these users or to allow them to post again in those limited areas on the basis of their posting behavior.

Soft-Banning spammers automatically is a thing on other forums such as nulled, leakforums and a few others where leechers get banned if they don't contribute to the forum constructively and they stay banned till they do so.
This works fairly well for those forums where people post to collect freebies. Can you tell what algorithm should be used over here to prevent the spammers and auto soft-banning them, if you have something in mind?

[2double0]

Soft-Banning spammers automatically is a thing on other forums such as nulled, leakforums and a few others where leechers get banned if they don't contribute to the forum constructively and they stay banned till they do so.
This works fairly well for those forums where people post to collect freebies. Can you tell what algorithm should be used over here to prevent the spammers and auto soft-banning them, if you have something in mind?

Yes I have some ideas I'd like to share:
#   First, those one-liner spammers who spam a specific board needs to be taken care of by immediately getting banned from posting in that area, this will clear up around 20-30% of the actual spam happening on the forum.
#   Then, looking for those who post off-topic replies or beat dead horse or do necroposts needs to be done and banhammered. This will help to clear up around 50% of the shitposts happening in many equally important boards like gambling and altcoins but shit is spread there a lot compared to other boards. These 2 boards need to be taken carefully if we want our forum clean and tidy.

These ideas however won't work out till our mods and admins think over them and take any actions. Users are blaming me how I can think of these ideas but they are not getting my intention that, spammers who spam in a specific board should not be given a chance and should be temp-banned from writing or even visiting that area till they show any signs of improvements through contributing in other areas of the forum.

[tranthidung]

#   First, those one-liner spammers who spam a specific board needs to be taken care of by immediately getting banned from posting in that area, this will clear up around 20-30% of the actual spam happening on the forum.

It is too generally to solve spam like that.
A good post does not mandatory to be a long one. A simple answer with Yes/No is enough for OP, even without explanation. To ban one-line spammers, moderators have to look at post history, and scan some posts in context, at least.

Another minus point for your proposal is the list of unofficial rules of the forum does not have very strict punishments on spammers. Spam is rule violation and will be caught, reported, handled then temporarily banned or nuked. However, punishments depend on intensity and severity of spams.
If one temporarily banned, I think the ban should be applied globally, over all boards/ subboards in the forum; not only restricted in boards/ subboards that they made posts which triggered their temp-bans.

I don't feel reasons to have reduced-temp-bans that restrict on particular boards/ sub-boards.

[actmyname]

It is too generally to solve spam like that.

Most one-liners are spam. I've seen this throughout the * discussion boards.