[Proposal] Tackling the spam

[BlackHatCoiner]

This thread should be read mainly from those who maintain and are responsible for this forum such as the admins & mods.

Prologue.

I was just reading this topic about the degradation of the Bitcoin discussion board and I felt kinda disappointed that the main subforum of bitcointalk is so ruined. Briefly, there's incentive on spamming this neglected and undervalued board and it's clearly due to signature campaigns. Signature campaigns and bounties are the reason for this uncontrollable spam, but not the cause.

All that account marketplace and this unbelievably disadvantaging hurry to fulfill the requirements for getting paid at the end of each week originate by the irresponsibility of those who hire. Thus, the source of the problem isn't the spammers nor the existence of those campaigns; it's the falsely way some folks choose to incentivize the users.


To understand this better.

If I came to you and told you that I'll pay you $50 each week, for creating many nonsensical-shitty posts at the same thread for spreading my product all over the first five pages, it's not (only) your fault for bringing all these meaningless discussions, but the guy's who incentivize you.

We may stop those specific users from discussing (so cunningly between their possible alts), such as by reporting frequently, but after all, we just paper over the cracks; the manager will sooner or later find others (or the same) greedy users who'll do the job. The root of the problem can be cut by stopping the manager from incentivizing in this way.


How to.

To achieve this, the wearing of a signature has to be handled more strictly. It must be forbidden to advertise a product without informing this forum first. This will cover the campaigns that are ran outside the forum and the managers who act irresponsibly without facing the consequences. This way, there can't be a campaign that will result into spamming without any punishment; the forum can comprehend the manager who's responsible for a campaign at any time.

A user can't wear a signature that contains a product and submit posts simultaneously (which is what led us to spamming) unless they have been approved by a manager to do so.

If the participant is found to be abusing the campaign by spamming, the manager has to remove him within a reasonable time limit such as a week, otherwise they're both culprits of filling the forum with illicit content.

Users can't just become managers if their application isn't approved by the forum. The users have to pass some sort of managing exams for being allowed to act likewise.


More rules can be introduced to this forum polity if they appear to be needed.

[1714862639]

1714862639

[1714862639]

1714862639

[Saidasun]

I do not think it is a good idea to bring centralization into approving campaign managers. I think we should just ban campaign managers that are not checking the quality of the members in their campaign and if they are found to be contributing to the degradation of the forum repeatedly they should be permanently banned. This is the only way you get the campaign managers to take their job seriously. I have heard that campaign managers are paid 100s of dollars a week and some of them are checking anything and are just submitting the payments. I think we could trial this idea in the bounty board because that is where most of the bounty managers that do not care about the forum are running their services.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I do not think it is a good idea to bring centralization into approving campaign managers.

Here's the abuse of that word again! It is hunting me wherever I go. The managers are already into the admins' fate; they can't do whatever they want. Every community has to work hierarchically, otherwise it's a mess.

This is the only way you get the campaign managers to take their job seriously.

I firmly disagree; they'd take their job even more seriously if the spam was tackled with this professional way. The less the managers, the greater the earnings of the current ones. The less the signature campaigns, the more they can ask from their clients, because they're offering a better service.

[Saidasun]

I firmly disagree; they'd take their job even more seriously if the spam was tackled with this professional way. The less the managers, the greater the earnings of the current ones. The less the signature campaigns, the more they can ask from their clients, because they're offering a better service.

Competition is what creates motivation not the lack of competition if you only have a couple of managers and it was hard to replace them they would become more complacent than now. The admins do not punish the campaign/bounty managers atm they only punish the sig spammers that are a part of the campaign. If they started punishing the campaign/bounty managers that is when they will change to become more constructive.

[Charles-Tim]

The root of the problem can be cut by stopping the manager from incentivizing in this way.

If this forum is getting too strict, the users of this forum will reduce, I am not encouraging spamming but neither should I encourage too stringent rules that might possibly harm the forum. I did not comment on that last thread just because I know good posters can decide to ignore some boards and/or some users. It is true that some users only want to spam, but the Bitcoin boards is not bad to the extent these stringent rules have to be enforced. We still maintain high quality Bitcoin boards (I do not know of altcoin boards), it will not be good to turn this forum into what only stale users will only be able to visit without encouraging news users. If you see any spam post, you can report it, I always report some spam posts and removing such posts by moderators is very fast, if the moderators are excellently responding to posts that are reported, I think we should just not go further about this. Also, some good posters ignore some boards, if they do not see it useful for them. This forum is working good with the active report button.

[Saidasun]

If this forum is getting too strict, the users of this forum will reduce, I am not encouraging spamming but neither should I encourage too stringent rules that might possibly harm the forum. I did not comment on that last thread just because I know good posters can decide to ignore some boards and/or some users. It is true that some users only want to spam, but the Bitcoin boards is not bad to the extent these stringent rules have to be enforced. We still maintain high quality Bitcoin boards (I do not know of altcoin boards), it will not be good to turn this forum into what only stale users will only be able to visit without encouraging news users. If you see any spam post, you can report it, I always report some spam posts and removing such posts by moderators is very fast, if the moderators are excellently responding to posts that are reported, I think we should just not go further about this. Also, some good posters ignore some boards, if they do not see it useful for them. This forum is working good with the active report button.

If we are too lenient then members will leave the forum any way and will go to places like Reddit. We are already fighting a losing battle because Reddit is a more popular platform and the format of it is more popular among young people. If we continue allowing spammers to spam what ever they want then we will lose the experienced members because they will be sick of it. The other topic showed that most people are ignoring or sick of the spam in Bitcoin Discussion. I think we need to concentrate on making the forum the best place for good discussions instead of worrying about losing members. Members will come to a quality forum because Reddit is low quality if we can beat them on quality then people will continue to come here.

[Charles-Tim]

If we are too lenient then members will leave the forum any way and will go to places like Reddit.

I am not implying leniency, in fact, the moderators are not lenient towards spammers, they even ban spammers if they have no good work already on this forum before, and the ones that deserved not to be banned can be temporarily banned. So, nothing like leniency when it comes to spamming on this forum. Also just know that many posts on Reddit is not as quality as many posts on this Bitcoin boards of this forum, they can just go to Reddit for pump and dump information or less quality posts. This forum in term of Bitcoin discussion is far better than any other forum.

We are already fighting a losing battle because Reddit is a more popular platform and the format of it is more popular among young people.

This should not be about spamming, Reddit was even created in 2005 before Bitcointalk that was created in 2009, Reddit is not only focusing on cryptocurrencies but many other discussion are on Reddit. We can also still discuss about this forum having alternative attractive, mobile friendly sites and mobile apps. Although, I will most likely stick to this present site.

If we continue allowing spammers to spam what ever they want then we will lose the experienced members because they will be sick of it.

With what I still noticed about this forum, this is not possible, also, this forum does not condone spamming. This has been repeated countless numbers of times that spam posts should be reported. Or have you reported any that was not deleted?

The other topic showed that most people are ignoring or sick of the spam in Bitcoin Discussion.

You are right, but we can do the forum good as we are reporting it, do not be tired of reporting spam.

I think we need to concentrate on making the forum the best place for good discussions instead of worrying about losing members.

You have to consider the two, but if the members are spammers, they have to be banned.

Members will come to a quality forum because Reddit is low quality if we can beat them on quality then people will continue to come here.

No forum is still quality like Bitcointalk when it comes to Bitcoin discussions.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The admins do not punish the campaign/bounty managers atm they only punish the sig spammers that are a part of the campaign. If they started punishing the campaign/bounty managers that is when they will change to become more constructive.

You're contradicting yourself. That's the very reason I made this proposal.

You are right, but we can do the forum good as we are reporting it, do not be tired of reporting spam.

You should not be tired of reporting spam, if the system you're working isn't structured to have spam. I thought that using the idiom “paper over the cracks” was sufficient to understand that while you may report frequently, there'll always be spammers this way.


I don't want to be rude, but please don't derail this thread with the Reddit comparison. It's off-topic.

[Saidasun]

The admins do not punish the campaign/bounty managers atm they only punish the sig spammers that are a part of the campaign. If they started punishing the campaign/bounty managers that is when they will change to become more constructive.

You're contradicting yourself. That's the very reason I made this proposal.

I do not think I am contradicting myself I understand the reason you proposed what you have but I think it is better to serve out bans to campaign / bounty managers instead of the forum choosing who is allowed to manage campaigns. This way it is fair to everyone creates competition between campaign/bounty managers and deals with the problem of spammers. I agree with your proposal that something has to be done but I am suggesting a alternative way which I think is more fair and achieves the same result.

[Kittygalore]

For the wearers of signatures, how will it be considered a spam, I always try to chase the maximum posts per week and I don't burst post. Will I be affected by this because I feel like it attacks those campaigns that pays per post?

[UserU]

For the wearers of signatures, how will it be considered a spam, I always try to chase the maximum posts per week and I don't burst post. Will I be affected by this because I feel like it attacks those campaigns that pays per post?

Because of the quota, they try to reach them by posting whatever that comes to their mind, often ignoring other posters and solely focusing on the OP's content.

Then there are those that might not have time to post consistently over the week which could be due to an IRL job, and when they realize they're falling short of the minimum threshold, they burst post.

Non joiners or even joiners themselves might find it hard to shake off the impression that sig campaign bearers tend to shitpost, but what to do, to each his own. Still, there are some legit posters out of the many.

[Kittygalore]

~

Then there are those that might not have time to post consistently over the week which could be due to an IRL job, and when they realize they're falling short of the minimum threshold, they burst post.

I don't have any qualms with quota, it makes you work hard for what you have. I feel like those people that burst post because of having other jobs is an excuse, I mean it's not like posting in the forum is time consuming, pretty sure that people will find a way to complete their quota. Also, isn't that the point of posting in the threads? To answer the OP if it's your first post in that thread?

[LoyceV]

The root of the problem can be cut by stopping the manager from incentivizing in this way.

Have you seen this topic? Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)
The rules have been in place for almost 5 years, but unfortunately they're not enforced. Enforcing them would basically mean Mods have to do the campaign manager's job, and that's a lot of work.

It must be forbidden to advertise a product without informing this forum first.

That goes directly against the forum's mission to be as free as possible. Theymos' post under this quote is worth reading too.

[UserU]

I don't have any qualms with quota, it makes you work hard for what you have. I feel like those people that burst post because of having other jobs is an excuse, I mean it's not like posting in the forum is time consuming, pretty sure that people will find a way to complete their quota. Also, isn't that the point of posting in the threads? To answer the OP if it's your first post in that thread?

Sometimes when the job tends to be too time-consuming, you tend to overlook/ take things for granted. It happened to me before so I could relate to that.

About the OP thing, most of the time the first few replies would already address the concern/ issue. It's just that those posters downright tend to ignore anything else because they don't want/ plan to engage with other users:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5337846.0

I see we’re still congratulating a banned account on this thread (OPs) …

If anybody is interested in seeing the first merited post of any (non-airdropped) merited account, I’ve updated a file which I published some months ago on another thread. Data is now as of 13/08/2021:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_I7WfxSnzOe7wvjE9dJ-aqH59PnfsMnKSVzycYljrx0/edit?usp=sharing

Anecdotally, there are 113 accounts that were awarded 50 Merits on their first received merit TX. Going some of them is not for the faint of heart …

[Kittygalore]

~

About the OP thing, most of the time the first few replies would already address the concern/ issue. It's just that those posters downright tend to ignore anything else because they don't want/ plan to engage with other users:

Well, if that's the case then shouldn't it automatically be locked or the mods should've locked it already if the issues addressed already since most incoming replies would just be a tangle of the OP and I feel like we need more of this engagement thing with users creating this threads.

[UserU]

Well, if that's the case then shouldn't it automatically be locked or the mods should've locked it already if the issues addressed already since most incoming replies would just be a tangle of the OP and I feel like we need more of this engagement thing with users creating this threads.

The OPs has to either lock them, which is a miracle if they happen or we could simply report them to the mods and they'll get locked soon enough.

If it encourages discussions between users, that's fine in my books. In the gambling section, most of the posts are in response to other quotes.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Have you seen this topic? Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)

Yes, once I read about the current situation of the Bitcoin discussion, I searched for that rule and realized it isn't enforced.

The rules have been in place for almost 5 years, but unfortunately they're not enforced. Enforcing them would basically mean Mods have to do the campaign manager's job, and that's a lot of work.

Obviously, they can't do all the work; that's why I made this proposal. Also:

The government cannot enforce its mountain of laws and regulations without voluntary compliance

That goes directly against the forum's mission to be as free as possible. Theymos' post under this quote is worth reading too.

I get that this forum is meant to remain as free as possible, but if we don't deal with this problem, forum's freedom will essentially continue being abused.

[Stalker22]

We already have a method to fight spam. It is the merit system. I do not understand why managers do not use it more effectively.
For example, if a user posts 50 times per week without earning a single merit, they are very likely signature spammers.

Additionally, "posts deleted" should be visible in a member's profile. This is the most accurate metric we can use to determine if a member is spamming.
For example, according to the bpip.org website, there are some members who have a posts made/posts deleted ratio of 5/1 and still participate in signature campaigns. This indicates that the campaign manager is not doing his job properly.

[ABCbits]

How to.

--snip--

Those 4 "How to" require active intervention by admin, moderator and manager. I doubt any of them are willing to review the company or approve the user manually. I would suggest only enable signature if the user receive X merit within last Y days (for example X is 8 and Y is 120). The hardest part is determining X/Y value, but admin only need to do it once.

[LoyceV]

We already have a method to fight spam. It is the merit system. I do not understand why managers do not use it more effectively.

From a campaign manager's perspective, fighting spam is often not worth the time. Running a tight campaign without spam is much more work than only counting the posts at the end of the week, while it also means less posts are made so they earn less. As long as the campaign manager doesn't risk a ban, many of them don't care.
The campaigns itself don't care either, as long as they can pay with made-up tokens. I've suggested before to only allow campaigns that pay in Bitcoin so they really have to pay for it, but that didn't happen.

[Rikafip]

We already have a method to fight spam. It is the merit system. I do not understand why managers do not use it more effectively.
For example, if a user posts 50 times per week without earning a single merit, they are very likely signature spammers.

I am not so sure that would be a good idea, to differentiate sig spammers by amount of merit earned, as in some boards it's much harder to get merit, which would lead to people writing even more in boards that are not natural to them just to get some merit. Its the same reason why gambling boards is a mess; a lot of sig campaigns have a requirement to write there so participants are forced to write there even they know squat about stuff they are writing about.

It should be simple really; if managers control their participants more there would be less spam. But since there are more open spots in sig campaigns than there are quality members, this is what we have. Whether they want it or not, they have to hire spammers  in order to fill up the campaign as i doubt some manager would say to potential client "sorry, with the amount you wanna offer, I can only get you shitposters".

[BlackHatCoiner]

I would suggest only enable signature if the user receive X merit within last Y days (for example X is 8 and Y is 120). The hardest part is determining X/Y value, but admin only need to do it once.

The signature isn't meant to be used exclusively for advertising. It's a personal space the user chooses to shows under their posts. I'm not entirely in disagreement with this addition, though. It's making the forum less free, but I like it. X/Y may not be enough; to prevent someone from buying merits, you could introduce the Z variable, which is the total users who merited the specific user within the Y.

There will then be more demand for merits which will lead to more posts, but they can't be all merited, so there'll be less participants. It could work.

As long as the campaign manager doesn't risk a ban, many of them don't care.

This is what it has to be fixed. There has to be a risk otherwise they'll continuously incentivize users to spam.

I am not so sure that would be a good idea, to differentiate sig spammers by amount of merit earned, as in some boards it's much harder to get merit, which would lead to people writing even more in boards that are not natural to them just to get some merit.

But, they won't, because the merit sources, who BTW are the most responsible for the merit distribution, will discourage their continuity.

[Stalker22]

As long as the campaign manager doesn't risk a ban, many of them don't care.

This is what it has to be fixed. There has to be a risk otherwise they'll continuously incentivize users to spam.

That is it. There must be someone who has authority to supervise and penalize campaign managers. And not just managers, but also organizers.
Is this going to introduce another layer of freedom restrictions and centralization to the forum? Definitely. However, I don't see any problem with that. We already have various rules that we are required to follow as well as people who enforce them (moderators). So why would it be a problem to add another rule, or two?

[LoyceV]

Is this going to introduce another layer of freedom restrictions and centralization to the forum? Definitely. However, I don't see any problem with that. We already have various rules that we are required to follow as well as people who enforce them (moderators). So why would it be a problem to add another rule, or two?

I read this Benjamin Franklin quote recently:

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This quote applies here too. As much as I hate spam, "online freedom" is becoming more and more scarce. And once it's gone, you won't easily get it back.

[Stalker22]

Is this going to introduce another layer of freedom restrictions and centralization to the forum? Definitely. However, I don't see any problem with that. We already have various rules that we are required to follow as well as people who enforce them (moderators). So why would it be a problem to add another rule, or two?

I read this Benjamin Franklin quote recently:

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This quote applies here too. As much as I hate spam, "online freedom" is becoming more and more scarce. And once it's gone, you won't easily get it back.

As it appears, you misunderstand my point. I am not advocating the abolition of individual liberties, but a more civilized community.
There are already defined forum rules? Yes. Should all community members follow the default forum rules? Yes?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Briefly, there's incentive on spamming this neglected and undervalued board and it's clearly due to signature campaigns.

Bitcoin Discussion isn't a neglected section by any means; it's probably one of the most active on the forum--but unfortunately that's because of the problem we're discussing here, i.e., rampant shitposting.  It should be one of the most important ones, where great discussions happen and also one having stricter moderation, but that isn't the reality and it hasn't been for years.

Signature campaigns and bounties are the reason for this uncontrollable spam, but not the cause.

This sentence does not compute.  And I read your theory about the responsibility for all the garbage that's in Bitcoin Discussion and I have to say I don't agree with that.  Is it true that most of the shitposting comes from members in sig campaigns or bounties?  Yep.  Is it the fault of campaign/bounty managers or the owners of them?  Somewhat, IMO, but the fact is that the aforementioned members are being incentivized to post, not to post crap.  They're the equivalent of lazy real-world workers who come to work and do the absolute minimum (or those who are utterly incompetent at their job).

These sig campaigners could take their time and write well thought-out posts, but they don't for whatever reason.  I suspect one of those reasons is that they have alt accounts enrolled in multiple campaigns/bounties and therefore can't spend time crafting decent posts.  So that puts the blame squarely on the individual, not the campaign itself.  And that's where I think most of it is deserved.

[Rikafip]

I read this Benjamin Franklin quote recently:

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This quote applies here too. As much as I hate spam, "online freedom" is becoming more and more scarce. And once it's gone, you won't easily get it back.

Question here is whether more "freedom" means bitcointalk being a better place. For example, on some other forums that I am currently active I am free to plagiarize as much as I want without being banned (I will be ostracized and ridiculed though). Having more freedom in that regard doesn't make it a better place in my eyes, I like bitcointalk's firm stance on the issue.

These sig campaigners could take their time and write well thought-out posts, but they don't for whatever reason. I suspect one of those reasons is that they have alt accounts enrolled in multiple campaigns/bounties and therefore can't spend time crafting decent posts.  So that puts the blame squarely on the individual, not the campaign itself.  And that's where I think most of it is deserved.

I don't think that main cause (or even one of the main ones) of low quality posts is due sig campaigners maintaining several alts but because of simple reason: they are getting paid for those shitposts anyway so why would they change? So in the end, it's up to managers so sort that out. Then again, there are far more spots in signature campaigns than there are quality members and situation is not getting any better.

[LoyceV]

Question here is whether more "freedom" means bitcointalk being a better place.

Maybe. The main problem I have with "more rules" is that's it's usually going only in one direction, and there will always be people asking for even more rules. I've already seen KYC suggested several times. No doubt it would reduce the amount of spam (and it will for sure reduce the number of posts I make to zero too), but it won't make the forum a better place.
One of the reasons scamming is allowed, is because Admin doesn't want to decide what is or isn't a scam. Some cases are very clear, which would be easy to ban, but sometimes there's doubt. The same problem will arise if Mods have to decide which campaign is spamming.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Is it true that most of the shitposting comes from members in sig campaigns or bounties?  Yep.  Is it the fault of campaign/bounty managers or the owners of them?  Somewhat, IMO, but the fact is that the aforementioned members are being incentivized to post, not to post crap.  They're the equivalent of lazy real-world workers who come to work and do the absolute minimum (or those who are utterly incompetent at their job).

Did you read my example? Who do you consider the source of the problem; the one who faults the most? You can't really believe that it's the participant. Besides, we've seen that if we punish participants (by banning them), the spam remains uncontrollable. You aren't tackling spam with a report for each weirdo who decided to ruin this place's discussions from their different accounts.

You have to stop the person who incentivizes them.

They're the equivalent of lazy real-world workers who come to work and do the absolute minimum (or those who are utterly incompetent at their job).

The managers decide what's the “absolute minimum”, don't they?

[actmyname]

One of the reasons scamming is allowed, is because Admin doesn't want to decide what is or isn't a scam. Some cases are very clear, which would be easy to ban, but sometimes there's doubt. The same problem will arise if Mods have to decide which campaign is spamming.

If you ban a false scammer, that is not equivalent to banning a false campaign.

Since moderators already decide what is considered spam via reports, extending that to campaigns would widen the scope to include multiple users, as opposed to individual posts. In the past, some threads have been locked, showing that moderator discretion extends to threads worth of content, some of which may have a greater post count than what was produced by campaign posters in the same period.


Ad-hoc solutions of simply "moving spam" to another place don't work either and result in places like Investor-based games (99%+ spam to redirect ponzi threads), Serious discussion (dead board with TWO threads above 100 replies), Bounties, and Altcoin Discussion.

Imagine someone was shitting on your floor, and your solution was to tell them to shit in the tub instead. Or, maybe, you decide that you should go upstairs with your actual guests in a new, shoddily-built room. Then, when all their friends come along and increase their shitting output, at least you'll have some refuge from the horrible activity you can never prevent.

At a certain point, you're going to have to ask yourself: are these shit-covered walls worth it to prevent those very few people whom enjoy the smell of shit from being wrongly barred from your house? They have to be, right? After all, we need to maintain those people that are still willing to join the forum in its crumbling yet unfaltering state. Even if 95% of posts are spam or scams, our values are uncompromising.^*I wouldn't change anything, though. Let's see how this experiment ends, after all.

_* subject to potential forum changes

The managers decide what's the “absolute minimum”, don't they?

Look at any bounty campaign and think about the minimum cost required, then think about what their minimum post requirements would be in response to that.

[libert19]

I have realized that those bounties who allow low quality posts, are themselves low quality to begin with. The participants and neither the manager would be getting much out of it.

[Rikafip]

Maybe. The main problem I have with "more rules" is that's it's usually going only in one direction, and there will always be people asking for even more rules.

True, and having less rules on bitcointalk makes sense as it goes in the line with whole Bitcoin philosophy of self responsibility etc, just wanted to say that little adjustments wouldn't hurt that "freedom" feeling we have here (which I like a lot as in majority of other forums you can easily get banned just by having unpopular opinion).

I am not saying that what @BlackHatCoiner suggested is right approach either, but I definitely wouldn't mind (or felt oppressed) if forum is more strict when it comes to spam/shitposters. The same way I don't feel like having less freedom due plagiarism rule and I wouldn't want it to get lifted just so we can say that we are more free.

[Stalker22]

I am not saying that what @BlackHatCoiner suggested is right approach either, but I definitely wouldn't mind (or felt oppressed) if forum is more strict when it comes to spam/shitposters. The same way I don't feel like having less freedom due plagiarism rule and I wouldn't want it to get lifted just so we can say that we are more free.

Exactly. Having rules does not necessarily imply restricting freedom of expression. As in the real world, rules and laws exist to prevent anarchy. If everyone were allowed to do what they want, this would be a very shitty place.

[NotATether]

Just don't pay for posts in Bitcoin Discussion for an easy solution.

[Stalker22]

Just don't pay for posts in Bitcoin Discussion for an easy solution.

You can read actmyname's explanation of why an ad-hoc solution isn't actually a solution a few posts up.

[o_e_l_e_o]

As much as I hate spam, "online freedom" is becoming more and more scarce. And once it's gone, you won't easily get it back.

My freedom to hold a meaningful discussion is already impacted by spammers flooding every thread with trash. I'll absolutely defend anybody's right to express and discuss any opinion or viewpoint, but you actually have to discuss it, not just fire out some meaningless spam to hit a post quota.

True, and having less rules on bitcointalk makes sense as it goes in the line with whole Bitcoin philosophy of self responsibility etc

The issue here is that if you are irresponsible with your bitcoin, hold it with a third party, save your seed phrase in your email, etc., then it doesn't impact on me in the slightest. If you are irresponsible with your forum account, signing up to scam bounties, churning out spam posts, etc., then it directly impacts on how well other people can use the forum for discussion.

Just don't pay for posts in Bitcoin Discussion for an easy solution.

And watch the spammers take over a different board instead.

[LoyceV]

Exactly. Having rules does not necessarily imply restricting freedom of expression. As in the real world, rules and laws exist to prevent anarchy.

You're kinda proving my point: in the real world, there's a very large area between the laws we currently have, and anarchy. I agree you need some basic rules, because I wouldn't like to engage in daily fights to see who's strongest. But politicians didn't stop there, and they're still continuously adding new laws. We have laws that make painting your house green illegal, which has nothing to do with preventing anarchy, it's just someone having power over someone else.
I find it quite scary how easily people ask for more laws and more government intervention for almost every aspect of life.
Bitcointalk is kinda the same: barely anyone would advocate less rules. To give an example:

11. No linking to illegal trading sites.

Binance doesn't have a permit where I live, so it's illegal. Until now, I didn't even realize this rule exists, but it turns out I'm not allowed to link to Binance. Given the nature of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, soon "illegal" trading sites will be the only ones you can use anonymously. Rule 11 is the first one I'd like to see removed!

[actmyname]

You're kinda proving my point: in the real world, there's a very large area between the laws we currently have, and anarchy. I agree you need some basic rules, because I wouldn't like to engage in daily fights to see who's strongest. But politicians didn't stop there, and they're still continuously adding new laws.

Fear of falling down the slippery slope doesn't mean that you can't have a staircase with handrails. If you're scared, just remember to have three points of contact.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The word “freedom” was written eight times in this page which makes me believe that there's some sort of apprehension in your perspective. I don't consider my solution excessive as I understand you see it that way.

What happens if those rules are demanded by the users and not by the admins (e.g., me)? No one twists one's arm to this proposal and thus, freedom of choice remains. I want to believe that this community operates more democratically rather than anarchically.

The proposal I made is a pain in the neck to the ones who ruin the meaningfulness in the discussions, not to those who want to actually discuss. I thought that we'd agree on the stringency of the bounties/signature campaigns and not on leaving the spammers untouched to supposedly retain this forum's freedom.

[FatFork]

I want to believe that this community operates more democratically rather than anarchically.

The rule of the majority (while respecting the rights of the minority) is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. I'm not sure we have that here.

The proposal I made is a pain in the neck to the ones who ruin the meaningfulness in the discussions, not to those who want to actually discuss. I thought that we'd agree on the stringency of the bounties/signature campaigns and not on leaving the spammers untouched to supposedly retain this forum's freedom.

A community this diverse will find it difficult to reach a consensus on any issue. At best, you can hope to get the approval of the majority, but you must also accept that the opposition may have a point of view as well.

[actmyname]

What happens if those rules are demanded by the users and not by the admins (e.g., me)? No one twists one's arm to this proposal and thus, freedom of choice remains. I want to believe that this community operates more democratically rather than anarchically.

Find a way to ferry those targeted users in your proposal into the port of rulebreakers.

Take for example #1 and its extension:

No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads.

Such posts as "SELL SELL SELL", "I agree", "+1", "Support", "Watching", "Interesting", "LOL", "SCAM", "LEGIT", "FAKE", other one word posts, posts consisting mostly of swearing, quote pyramids, useless introduction threads, threads about a topic already recently discussed in several other threads.

If you have enforcement against users that are spammers, should there be enforcement against users that create spammers?
Or users that incentivize spam (e.g. rule 15)?

After all...

Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your [altcoin] threads. [...] Similar threads are already restricted to Games and Rounds in the non-altcoin sections

Well, that's on a thread-by-thread or post-by-post basis, whereas signature campaigns impact the entire forum and multiple posts at once. Too much for moderators to handle there: they can't possibly have that responsibility or else we've crossed the line. Unless another campaign gets to YoBit levels of spam, I doubt you'll see much restriction against signature campaigns (even if they are run by Newbies, red-trusted, no-escrow, shady platforms).

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't think that main cause (or even one of the main ones) of low quality posts is due sig campaigners maintaining several alts but because of simple reason: they are getting paid for those shitposts anyway so why would they change?

As a counterpoint to your argument, I'd say that we've seen lots of evidence of members with alt accounts abusing bounties and signature campaigns, and many of those members have been tagged by me or some other DT member(s).  I didn't make that assertion with nothing to back it, and you've been on the forum long enough to have seen people getting busted for enrolling one or more alt accounts in a campaign/bounty.

And even if that wasn't the case, why not try to do a good job so that your chances of getting accepted into another campaign or bounty are higher?  If you're in a 3rd world country and can make more money participating in a sig campaign than you could with a full-time job in your area, don't you think you should put in some effort?  I don't think that's an outrageously high standard.

Unless another campaign gets to YoBit levels of spam, I doubt you'll see much restriction against signature campaigns (even if they are run by Newbies, red-trusted, no-escrow, shady platforms).

Yep, you're right about that--and I think the only problem with Yobit's last campaign was that they seemingly didn't have a cap on how many members they'd allow in, and the result was that there were well over 100 (if I recall correctly) members with varying post quality all trying to make the maximum number of posts per day, which also was a lot.  There isn't likely to be a campaign like that again....I hope.