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.

[1715211823]

1715211823

[1715211823]

1715211823

[1715211823]

1715211823

[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.