Why do these accounts have the right to wear a clickable signature on the forum?

[Poker Player]

Let's see this profile: S A KHAIR

I will leave aside the fact that he promotes a known scam site which as we all know is not moderated in this forum.

What strikes me is that in 5 fucking years he has not been able to earn a single merit and here he is getting paid for writing garbage because the account was created before the merit system was implemented.

I think consideration should be given to either derank such accounts or give them a signature ban until they are able to earn the 10 fucking merits that enable them to wear clickable signatures, as it happens to accounts that were created after the merit system was introduced.

To earn 10 fucking merits in 5 years is clearly achievable even for a low-quality poster who cares to contribute positively to the forum.

Edit: in light of the discussion, I think the solution would be to remove all airdropped merit as NeuroticFish suggests.

Edit 2: you can find many more morons on page 2.

[1714782404]

1714782404

[Poker Player]

The forum is free, the campaign manager can decide whether to accept such participants or not. The more shitposters the manager accepts the lower reputation the campaign and respectfully the project has.
If the site is a scam one then it's completely unsurprising to see that.
Remember that the forum moderators do not deal with the scams, as proving one is a hard procedure. Uti cerebrum and all will be good.

Next time you better respond to what I am saying and not something else that has nothing to do with what I am saying. I'll make it clear to see if you can see it:

I will leave aside the fact that he promotes a known scam site which as we all know is not moderated in this forum.

I am not talking about signature campaigns or 1Xcrap.

I'm talking about that kind of people who have not been able to earn a single fucking merit in 5 years should not be entitled to wear clickable signatures by the simple fact of their registration date.

[mocacinno]

In this case, i do get your point... But what if somebody that used to be very active and a real asset of the forum took a leave of absence just before the merit system was introduced and wanted to come back right now? Wouldn't he/she be entitled to the same perks as the rest of us instead of being stripped from his/her merits just because he/she didn't log in for 5 years? There are plenty of cases of really helpfull people that just went away, but they used to be super helpfull. I'd still like those old accounts to be able to wear a sig, even if they haven't posted for years... And if they come back, they should still have their merits, their signature, their rank,...

But i do get your point that it's frustrating to see people that have never earned a single merit spamming just because they have been a member for so long that they didn't have to work for their merits... I'd personally just hope that such a person gets banned or receives red trust sooner or later, that way their spamming days should be over...

[Maus0728]

Apart from wearing a scam gambling casino site, the fact that the user has not earned merit in the last 5 years is a clear indication that the person is making meaningless posts that may result in bans.

The question is whether there are few to no reported posts by that specific user, allowing him or her to be exposed to banning, which could serve as a stepping stone toward improvement. Or the forum has become less stringent in dealing with these types of people.

Staff do not want to hand out bans for unconstructive posts but if we feel that you as a user are continually making very poor or unsubstantial posts due to your paid signature the following bans will be issued:

First offence: 7 days
Second offence: 14 days
Third offence: 30 days
Fourth: Permanent ban
...

[Poker Player]

In this case, i do get your point... But what if somebody that used to be very active and a real asset of the forum took a leave of absence just before the merit system was introduced and wanted to come back right now? Wouldn't he/she be entitled to the same perks as the rest of us instead of being stripped from his/her merits just because he/she didn't log in for 5 years? There are plenty of cases of really helpfull people that just went away, but they used to be super helpfull. I'd still like those old accounts to be able to wear a sig, even if they haven't posted for years... And if they come back, they should still have their merits, their signature, their rank,...

If you want solutions, there are solutions. The forum could put a signature ban until people earn 10 merits and in those cases that you are saying, those who returned to the forum would be able to earn 10 merits in no time. They would have their merits and rank intact and their clickable signature right away.

But i do get your point that it's frustrating to see people that have never earned a single merit spamming just because they have been a member for so long that they didn't have to work for their merits... I'd personally just hope that such a person gets banned or receives red trust sooner or later, that way their spamming days should be over...

The guy in the example has red trust, but it serves him to get paid to write garbage, although I don't want to focus on that as I said before.

-snip

Thanks for that. I am going to report him.

[mocacinno]

--snip--

If you want solutions, there are solutions. The forum could put a signature ban until people earn 10 merits and in those cases that you are saying, those who returned to the forum would be able to earn 10 merits in no time. They would have their merits and rank intact and their clickable signature right away.
--snip--

But you're still giving them a sig ban right now, right?

I was thinking about an IRL example, and i found one pretty fast...
This means, for example, cdecker (who is doing very valuable work for the bitcoin lightning network. He used to be active on bitcointalk, but hasn't logged in since 2018, but he still remains very active in the community... Just not on bitcointalk) would see his signature removed, eventough it contains a link that he might still want to show. If he didn't log in, his signature would be lost forever, and if he did log in, he would have to jump trough the hoops to make at least a couple of posts just to gain some merit to see a privilege he has earned restored.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not disagreeing with you completely... I'm just trying to make a point that it isn't black and white... If you make rash decissions, there will be victims. If you use any kind of algorithm, inclusions, exclusions,... it'll be costly (either in dev time, or in moderation time) and there will still be loopholes and victims... It's not something you should do without considering every angle... And the most probably outcome i predict is Theymos telling us everything will stay exactly the same (but that's just my gut feeling).

[Poker Player]

But you're still giving them a sig ban right now, right?

I was thinking about an IRL example, and i found one pretty fast...
This means, for example, cdecker (who is doing very valuable work for the bitcoin lightning network. He used to be active on bitcointalk, but hasn't logged in since 2018, but he still remains very active in the community... Just not on bitcointalk) would see his signature removed, eventough it contains a link that he might still want to show. If he didn't log in, his signature would be lost forever, and if he did log in, he would have to jump trough the hoops to make at least a couple of posts just to gain some merit to see a privilege he has earned restored.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not disagreeing with you completely... I'm just trying to make a point that it isn't black and white... If you make rash decissions, there will be victims. If you use any kind of algorithm, inclusions, exclusions,... it'll be costly (either in dev time, or in moderation time) and there will still be loopholes and victims... It's not something you should do without considering every angle...

There are always going to be exceptions but I see more cases of people like the one I put in the OP than the one you mention, and in that case, I think the merit sources that know him would give him the 10 merits so that he would not lose his signature. Wouldn't you give him some merit so he wouldn't lose the signature? In that case, even I could give him some merit if I had smerits at the time.

And the most probably outcome i predict is Theymos telling us everything will stay exactly the same (but that's just my gut feeling).

We both agree on this.

[NeuroticFish]

In this case, i do get your point... But what if somebody that used to be very active and a real asset of the forum took a leave of absence just before the merit system was introduced and wanted to come back right now? Wouldn't he/she be entitled to the same perks as the rest of us instead of being stripped from his/her merits just because he/she didn't log in for 5 years? There are plenty of cases of really helpfull people that just went away, but they used to be super helpfull. I'd still like those old accounts to be able to wear a sig, even if they haven't posted for years... And if they come back, they should still have their merits, their signature, their rank,...

Imho you are only partly right.
An old account posting useful stuff has probably received some merit already, even if the posts are ancient.
An old account coming back after 5 years may not be interested in signatures / earning (unless sold or hacked!), may probably be more interested in the actual discussions (which will probably get him merit fast).

So yes, you are somewhat right, demoting users would be "not nice". But it may solve more problems than it would create.

Maybe Theymos would start thinking at least on slowly decaying the airdropped merit (and related rank), and that's for everybody, no exceptions.

[Upgrade00]

For this suggestion to be practical and unbiased, then it would have to apply to all ranks and the perks that come with it;
• One would have to earn 100 merits to be able to wear a avatar regardless of their airdropped merits,
• A member would also need to earn 500+ merits to be able to wear a hero/legendary member styled signature.

This would come with lots of intricacies and unnecessary drama. Meta would likely be spammed with regular tons of garbage complaint posts, plus is would be confusing to explain why a member with a certain rank cannot act in the same capacity as others; This then opens up a discussion about whether or not they should be de-ranked, and by extension de-merited.

A random shitposter joining a scam campaign is not a worthy reason for the admins to open the can of worms that you're suggesting, imo.

[Poker Player]

Maybe Theymos would start thinking at least on slowly decaying the airdropped merit (and related rank), and that's for everybody, no exceptions.

I would go further. I think the solution lies in removing airdropped merit from everyone. They have had enough time to earn merit.

For this suggestion to be practical and unbiased, then it would have to apply to all ranks and the perks that come with it;

Such as removing all airdropped merit.

This would come with lots of intricacies and unnecessary drama. Meta would likely be spammed with regular tons of garbage complaint posts, plus is would be confusing to explain why a member with a certain rank cannot act in the same capacity as others; This then opens up a discussion about whether or not they should be de-ranked, and by extension de-merited.

A random shitposter joining a scam campaign is not a worthy reason for the admins to open the can of worms that you're suggesting, imo.

There is a contradiction in this imo. If the problem is a random shitposter I've encountered, how would there be tons of compliant posts. If there were so many, is that there are many people unfairly with clickable signatures without having earned them.

[Upgrade00]

I would go further. I think the solution lies in removing airdropped merit from everyone. They have had enough time to earn merit.

This has been suggested many times in the past, IIRC.

How I have come to view the situation; These members who were here before the merit system and before the forum was 'as popular' are partly the reason there's a forum for newer members to register later on.
I had not heard a thing of Bitcoin in 2010 thought to 2016, but yet users kept discussions going on here, donations, moderating, reporting many of such tasks which came with no reward.

Airdropped merits is sort of proof of the effort put in before a certain time and scrapping it out is an extreme action, imo.

There is a contradiction in this imo. If the problem is a random shitposter I've encountered, how would there be tons of compliant posts. If there were so many, is that there are many people unfairly with clickable signatures without having earned them.

Some would argue that there are tons of merit worthy posts made before the merit system which did not get any, cause it was not a thing.
Members went back to merit popular posts and members, but many more replies in random threads went without notice.

[Poker Player]

How I have come to view the situation, these members who were here before the merit system and before the forum was 'as popular' are partly the reason there's a forum for newer members to register later on.
I had not heard a thing of Bitcoin in 2010 thought to 2016, but yet users kept discussions going on here, donations, moderating, reporting many of such tasks which came with no reward.

Airdropped merits is sort of proof of the effort put in before a certain time and scrapping it out is an extreme action, imo.

I don't see it that way. Airdropping merits is a socialist measure that I don't know how an ancap like theymos implemented it. I guess he saw it as a lesser evil. What that measure does is equalize those who wrote good posts and those who wrote garbage.

Some would argue that there are tons of merit worthy posts made before the merit system which did not get any, cause it was not a thing.
Members went back to merit popular posts and members, but many more replies in random threads went without notice.

I don't know why they argue that. I have seen a lot of posts written before the system was introduced that have received merit.

[NeuroticFish]

Some would argue that there are tons of merit worthy posts made before the merit system which did not get any, cause it was not a thing.
Members went back to merit popular posts and members, but many more replies in random threads went without notice.

You're right, but somebody coming back can pretty easily ask around for his post get reviewed and (some) merited if it's the case.
I don't know if there are so many users coming back after 5 years (again, without being hacked or sold).

I have the feeling we try to fix a problem we don't have instead of fixing one we have.

I would go further. I think the solution lies in removing airdropped merit from everyone. They have had enough time to earn merit.

That's what I tried to say, but maybe my choice of words was not the best.
The difference is that I proposed to diminish that slowly, since then:
* users getting some smaller amount of merit will not be demoted instantly and get one more chance
* on the other hand users who didn't get any merit for so long will be demoted, starting to solve this problem

But yeah, any of the two will do

[LoyceV]

During my years at the forum, the only reduction in signature capacity for existing accounts was when theymos Enhanced newbie restrictions & requirements:

All existing Jr Members who didn't meet the requirement were demoted. Also, newbies can no longer set any signature or personal text.

I'm talking about that kind of people who have not been able to earn a single fucking merit in 5 years should not be entitled to wear clickable signatures by the simple fact of their registration date.

Allow me to quote theymos (again):

The things on the forum which encourage spam are allowed mainly because it's part of the forum's mission to be as free as possible. Eg. banning bounties would undoubtedly reduce spam, but that'd be destroying an entire economy/population/culture which has been able to develop due to the forum's freedom. I am willing to take this sort of action, but only as an absolute last resort. It's always preferable to handle these problems by reshaping the environment to make them non-problems, rather than removing some freedom.

It's wonderful when someone is able to constructively do something on the forum instead of continuing with whatever they were expected to do under the status quo. Enabling that sort of thing is exactly why Bitcoin and this forum were created. Though bitcointalk.org is not a worldwide welfare organization, and people are not entitled to make money.
~
The low signal-to-noise is a real issue which seriously annoys me and is often on my mind. But as you mention, fixing it non-destructively is difficult.

If you want solutions, there are solutions. The forum could put a signature ban until people earn 10 merits and in those cases that you are saying, those who returned to the forum would be able to earn 10 merits in no time. They would have their merits and rank intact and their clickable signature right away.

So the shitposters buy 10 Merit with the account they bought, and continue.

If he didn't log in, his signature would be lost forever, and if he did log in, he would have to jump trough the hoops to make at least a couple of posts just to gain some merit to see a privilege he has earned restored.

Sometimes it feels like theymos is years ahead:

When barriers to participation are too high, then the best people often just won't go to the trouble of joining, and the people who are willing to jump through the hoops are often people who aren't good for the community: people with nothing better to do, scammers, get-rick-quickers, etc.

Maybe Theymos would start thinking at least on slowly decaying the airdropped merit (and related rank), and that's for everybody, no exceptions.

I don't expect old accounts to ever lose their "perks". Reducing "grandfathered" Merit has been suggested many times before. Losing 1 Merit per year would be enough to downgrade many old accounts. Or 1 Merit per 100 Activity, or 100 Posts. But none of this would stop the spammers: they'll just buy/use a higher ranked account and continue shitposting with one rank less. A current Legendary would take forever to lose enough rank to reduce signature value. Or they'll buy a few Merits somewhere.

The only way to get rid of their spam, is reporting their posts. But to do that, I'd have to actually read it first, and I can't get myself to do that. So I've given up on reporting them, whenever I see a user with that scam-casino's signature, I click Ignore. On the Gambling board, many topics now have many Ignored users posting in a row. That makes the whole place quite useless.

I would go further. I think the solution lies in removing airdropped merit from everyone. They have had enough time to earn merit.

Allow me to be the first to complain: why should LoyceBot drop back to Jr. Member?

[NeuroticFish]

I don't expect old accounts to ever lose their "perks". Reducing "grandfathered" Merit has been suggested many times before. Losing 1 Merit per year would be enough to downgrade many old accounts. Or 1 Merit per 100 Activity, or 100 Posts. But none of this would stop the spammers: they'll just buy/use a higher ranked account and continue shitposting with one rank less. A current Legendary would take forever to lose enough rank to reduce signature value. Or they'll buy a few Merits somewhere.

I was thinking more to something like some percent, to not take forever.
And maybe I live in a dream world, by buying merits is not so wide spread (as buying accounts) and risky (or riskier) too. And if it's risky and expensive it may not worth the price (one can hope...)

The only way to get rid of their spam, is reporting their posts. But to do that, I'd have to actually read it first, and I can't get myself to do that. So I've given up on reporting them, whenever I see a user with that scam-casino's signature, I click Ignore. On the Gambling board, many topics now have many Ignored users posting in a row. That makes the whole place quite useless.

Reporting does help, but I feel that it's an underused feature.
Ignoring them helps them; the shitposts don't get reported, the signatures get spammed, the newbies get scammed. You know the drill...

[LoyceV]

I was thinking more to something like some percent, to not take forever.

That could work, 10% per year would take some serious effort to keep the Rank. But I don't think it will happen.

And maybe I live in a dream world, by buying merits is not so wide spread (as buying accounts) and risky (or riskier) too. And if it's risky and expensive it may not worth the price (one can hope...)

The spammers promoting a scam get tagged the moment they show their signature. They don't care about negative feedback, so getting tagged for buying Merit or accounts doesn't matter to them.

Reporting does help, but I feel that it's an underused feature.
Ignoring them helps them; the shitposts don't get reported, the signatures get spammed, the newbies get scammed. You know the drill...

I know the drill, but ignoring them means I can spend my time reading more good posts. That's why I'm here after all.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Could it be easier to do everything? There are far fewer signature managers for companies than there are participants who want to take part in these companies.

If you create rules for admission to your companies for participants who have earned more than 10 merits within three or six months,

In my opinion, the number of applicants will decrease drastically, and those who have no problems with receiving merit will not feel disadvantaged since they will easily receive this merit.

But of course, a lot depends on the managers.

[SatoPrincess]

Could it be easier to do everything? There are far fewer signature managers for companies than there are participants who want to take part in these companies.

If you create rules for admission to your companies for participants who have earned more than 10 merits within three or six months,

In my opinion, the number of applicants will decrease drastically, and those who have no problems with receiving merit will not feel disadvantaged since they will easily receive this merit.

But of course, a lot depends on the managers.

I know most signature campaign managers have a 10 merit earned in 120 days rule in their campaign application. I don’t know if the same rules are applied for bounties. I think bounties are more loose with their rules. The participants in these bounties and low quality signature campaigns are usually accounts that just woke up or member rank accounts.
I doubt Theymos would want to make any huge changes that can disrupt the system.

[Asiska02]

In my opinion, the number of applicants will decrease drastically, and those who have no problems with receiving merit will not feel disadvantaged since they will easily receive this merit.

This is actually true and will not favor the later but only the former. The campaign managers are the moderators and can decide what they want in their campaign. But being considerate to others who are yet to perfect the forum well and earn merit within a short time will be better and appreciable. The little merit earned within the last 4 months before participating in most campaigns gives more hope and  action to do more for the upcoming members in the forum. This should not be much regularized or changed.

[dkbit98]

I don't understand how this account can even be active in forum when he is doing ban evasion for years... so wearing a signature or not is much less problem in this case.
It was proven since 2019 by coinlocket$ that farhansadik, Nilima-Temp, btcboss71, SAKHAIR, cryptosabbir120, rifatfor are all connected, and two of this account are banned while others are inactive.
More details about his accounts can be seen here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.msg50410794#msg50410794