Self-moderated topics - nice feature or should it get banned?

[1miau]

Whereas you come up with the idea of banning self moderated posts. Why?

Looks like you did not read my OP because I'm not the one who suggested to ban self-moderation. Unknown01 suggested to ban self-moderation. I'm in favor of self-moderation because it helps a lot, like combatting spam. In some sections, spam is a big issue and self-moderation can help to keep our own topic clean.

I do not understand the reason for creating this thread.

It's not allowed to ask for other people's views + additional arguments why self-moderation is useful?
And I've added a poll to ask for the public opinion.

But at least can be traceable through the archive tools.

Exactly that. Any abuse can be proven easily by checking these archive tools. 

[1714607834]

1714607834

[1714607834]

1714607834

[1714607834]

1714607834

[1714607834]

1714607834

[1714607834]

1714607834

[Synchronice]

But recently in our German section, Unknown01 attacked me like a troll by calling me "mentally ill person" because I'm trying to improve posting quality on Bitcointalk.
In addition, Unknown01 alleged that:

You are either emotionally connected to Unknown01 or naturally overthinker C'mon, there is nothing wrong with you but with that person, probably yes  

So, what's your opinion? Self-moderation to get banned or to stay?  
Do you have more points, why self-moderation is a beneficial feature for Bitcointalk?
Looking forward to your replies and your votes.  

There are cases when self-moderation is necessary, especially if you want to open a thread in Bitcoin Discussion board and expect serious discussion, you'll find it hard to satisfy that demand because an army of shitposters will come to spam. In this case, it's very beneficial to use self-moderation function because it won't be necessary to constantly disturb moderators and you'll be able to clean it alone + self-moderation label sometimes gives signal to shitposters to avoid thread because their shit post will be deleted. So, I agree with you!

P.S. Self-moderation should only be banned in ANN threads!

[AbuBhakar]

Self-moderated topics is the only way to have a proper discussion on topics that you really want. Due to the existence of forum signature ampaign, There’s a lot of user that keep dipping their noses on topic that they don’t have any good knowledge just to give an opinion especially on highly sensitive topic. Self-moderated topic helps the OP to filter all the acceptable replies for him to focus discussion on it instead of being flooded by nonsensical post that doesn't contain value.

[Lafu]

In my opinion, self-moderated topics are a great feature of Bitcointalk for many reasons, for example:

Yes it is a great feature and i have nothing against it when somebody is starting a self moderated Topic.

When i write in a self moderated thread i know that its possible that the post will be gets deleted when the Topic starter thinks its not fitting in there.
I know the Topic whats it about that all and 1miau deleted some of my posts also in there even when i thought why , but it is his Topic and im ok with that.

Even when i am not always sharing the view and things from 1miau specialy in that topic.
But in this case i agree with 1miau and i voted in the poll for that the self moderation should continue to be possible.

So the self moderated Topics are good  , but as mentioned from others saddly some Scammers abuse it specialy in the Announcements (Altcoins) section.

Just my 2 cents here 

[Master of Shitcoins]

Scammers can abuse self moderation, where warnings were deleted and it happened already.
We need to prevent abuse and need to don't allow self moderation for anyone having a negative trust from DT.

To tackle certain abuses is part of DT but also part of forum moderation. Negative trusted members should not be allowed to engage in self moderation.

[Volgastallion]

Scammers can abuse self moderation, where warnings were deleted and it happened already.
We need to prevent abuse and need to don't allow self moderation for anyone having a negative trust from DT.

To tackle certain abuses is part of DT but also part of forum moderation. Negative trusted members should not be allowed to engage in self moderation.

Yes but its not true at all, if you do a proper research of what of with who you are talking or making a business, you are not gonna have any problem.

For example if anyone scam someone here, no matter if he delete the posts or threads, the person can open a acusaation thread or put a flag on that man.

For me the most important poin of self moderation threads, its to avoid spam from newbies or accounts that doesnt understant the disscussion or they want to confuse.

Exactly that. It's quite spammy in the Gambling section, where many topics are flooded with dozens of low-quality spam daily. Even in 50 comments, very little information is contained.
These posts are only made due to paid signature campaigns and that's really a problem.

Luckily, some members dedicated to our Gambling board have launched new, self-moderated topics, where spam posts are getting removed, for example:

Spam topic: Premier League Prediction Thread 2023/2024 (4000 pages of replies)
Self-moderated topic: ⚽ English Premier League Season: 2021/2022 (200 pages of replies)

Hopefully, such incentives will decrease spam in that section even more as some topics are almost impossible to follow, when there are 50+ new replies every day.

Well in gambling zone.... lot of spam and crap. This its one thread made by me, i know my english its not so good, but i clarify the main issue a lot of time, and the people keep coming and talking/post ton of nonsense. The link of my thread.

When i was talking about having a good sleep or a normal life and still can bet on most of the sports, they start to talk i dont know how, if the timezone affect the bet itself or the game it was playing ..... WTF.

[paid2]

The simple fact that shitposters are opposed to self-moderated topics proves that self-moderated topics are effective, otherwise why would they be annoyed by their existence ?
It's a bit ridiculous, from my point of view, asking for this system to be banned would be like asking for the grading system to be stopped for an exam because you wouldn't be able to pass it. It's stupid to get angry at seeing your posts deleted in a topic where your own posts aren't welcome (when it's for legitimate reasons), theymos himself said to be careful in these topics :

Think carefully about whether you want to reply to a self-moderated topic, as your post may not be given due respect.

So it's in the contract, too bad for those who don't understand it.

For those who say "yes, but there are scammers who take advantage of it", this happened to me just a few days ago, so yes, it's true that some scammers can take advantage of it.
When it happened to me, I was a little weary to see that he had deleted the message in which I pointed out my doubts about his dubious topic. But after a few minutes' reflection, I understood that this was a positive thing in itself; it erased any doubt about his intentions, and provided proof that he's a dishonest user. So even in this case, self-moderated topics play a positive role. It's up to us to leave redtrusts when this system is abused, that's all.

Anything that can reduce the number of crappy posts and spam should be welcomed on our forum. Those who advocate in favor of spam and shitposting are militating against the general interest of the forum.

[Mpamaegbu]

OP, it would seem that it's kind of anniversary thing with you and Unknown01, looking at June and seeing both threads same time of the year🤦. Both this current thread and the previous one Unknown01 and his past of shady abuses where you guys slugged it out.

Anyway, to the best of my perspecacity I believe Self-Moderated threads have done more good in weeding out spam posts than harm in preventing free press. It should stay.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Self-moderated topics will not appeal to those who like to behave on the forum is not entirely correct. Trolls sometimes like to annoy people with their shitposts, and moderation itself removes this opportunity from them. But just as well, I would remove self-moderation from those with negative tags so that they don't delete replies from people they don't like.
I think whoever opens a topic like this should keep it clean, as the very idea hints at it.

[elevates]

Whereas you come up with the idea of banning self moderated posts. Why?

Looks like you did not read my OP because I'm not the one who suggested to ban self-moderation. Unknown01 suggested to ban self-moderation. I'm in favor of self-moderation because it helps a lot, like combatting spam. In some sections, spam is a big issue and self-moderation can help to keep our own topic clean.

I have read your OP and I feel you are suggesting it. The topic is nice feature or should it get banned?. In the end again on the pretext of asking a question you are suggesting it So, what's your opinion? Self-moderation to get banned or to stay? Stop suggesting and start questioning!

I do not understand the reason for creating this thread.

I have already told you to add him/her to your ignore list, rather than creating such a meaningless thread because of a personal dispute. BTW, I would not appreciate anyone coming on my self-moderated thread and start giving me advice about spam and lolololo. If you do not like it stay away from a self-moderated thread. There is enough spam happening on every board and thread that are not self-moderated. If you want to control every spam happening on any thread then just apply for a mod job here.

[bangjoe]

Self-moderated topics will not appeal to those who like to behave on the forum is not entirely correct. Trolls sometimes like to annoy people with their shitposts, and moderation itself removes this opportunity from them. But just as well,

More precisely the performance of moderation features by yourself is intended for it from some of the other benefits. People who make shitpost and or disrupt the topic of discussion are indeed disturbing and make the discussion not in line with the proper.
If you only rely on the moderator to supervise and clean the shitpost in my opinion it is a heavy work, because you have to check one by one and each page, and usually each board consists of only 1 or two moderators, especially if you have many chilboards and have many activities Utas is quite active, for me it's quite heavy work.
The moderation feature itself is one way to help moderator work in managing decent posts.

[Adbitco]

Self moderated topic should be restricted from certain people for instance account that has bad reputation and evil records on the forum, reason being that it would eliminate scammers, i.e, if they made a reply or comments in some board having been a self moderated thread they may like have them deleted after many people has already fallen victim. However, such features is still valuable and helpful to forum especially the bounty section where lots of newbies kept spamming some of the threads with their reports.

[1miau]

Anything that can reduce the number of crappy posts and spam should be welcomed on our forum. Those who advocate in favor of spam and shitposting are militating against the general interest of the forum.

Exactly that, I couldn't have said it any better.
We should always remember that services will advertise here because Bitcointalk is a well visited online place and being a well visited online place is achieved by high quality content. Like tutorials about Bitcoin, educated developers answering questions and giving insights etc.
On the contrary, spam is very harmful because (most) educated members don't want to read spam walls.
There are many crypto related online forums out there, where paid shitposting and low quality spam has turned establieshed members away and / or new members are not interested to sign up there because it's so spammy.
And Services
So, unironically, shitposters are destroying their own source of BTC.  
+1 for your comment.

Whereas you come up with the idea of banning self moderated posts. Why?

Looks like you did not read my OP because I'm not the one who suggested to ban self-moderation. Unknown01 suggested to ban self-moderation. I'm in favor of self-moderation because it helps a lot, like combatting spam. In some sections, spam is a big issue and self-moderation can help to keep our own topic clean.

I have read your OP and I feel you are suggesting it.

Maybe your feeling is a little bit wrong today because in case you've read that and you were capable to understand what I've written there, then you would have noticed, that your claim is completely wrong.
I'm suggesting this nowhere, that self-moderation should get banned.

The topic is nice feature or should it get banned?. In the end again on the pretext of asking a question you are suggesting it So, what's your opinion? Self-moderation to get banned or to stay?

Once again, I'm suggesting this nowhere, that self-moderation should get banned.  
Obviously, you are not capable to read or understand my OP.
So, very slowly and only for you some quotes, what's my opinion on the topic:

In my opinion, self-moderated topics are a great feature of Bitcointalk for many reasons, for example:
...

(I'm even mentioning reasons for that...)

There are much more probably. The forum is very big and self-moderation is a great feature.

I'm completely against what Unknown01 suggested because self-moderation is vital in my opinion. We should not ban it.
Removing this feature would be insanely sad and affect the forum very negatively in my opinion.

So, you can see: I've written it multiple times, what's my opinion on the issue.  



The member, who suggested to ban self-moderation, is Unknown01:

In addition, Unknown01 alleged that:

By the way, I would be in favor of banning self-moderated topics and if you don't like the community here, please leave our board.

And yes, Unknown01 is also not capable of reading properly...


So, stop embarrassing yourself, that I would have "suggested" banning self-moderation. I'm opposed of banning it.

The only thing I'm asking in the poll is what Bitcointalk's public opinion on this is. It's a simple question and I've made my opinion quite clear in my OP, that I'm in favor of self-moderation.
After re-reading my OP, it's quite an achivement from you to get it that wrong, since your post is littered with numerous false claims.

Stop suggesting and start questioning!

I've not suggested anything, dude.
Your false claims don't get more accurate if you repeat them 5 times.  

The only thing what needs to stop is people like you who are not capable of reading and despite that, you are still having the boldness to reply here twice (!) to show that you've not understand anything from my OP, even after Nestade and myself pointed it out to you, that your claims are wrong...

I do not understand the reason for creating this thread.

I have already told you to add him/her to your ignore list, rather than creating such a meaningless thread because of a personal dispute.

That's not your business who's on my ignore list. I have no problem at all to call out liars, shitposters and spammers when I'm coming over one.  

BTW, I would not appreciate anyone coming on my self-moderated thread and start giving me advice about spam and lolololo.
If you do not like it stay away from a self-moderated thread.

I agree to your point. But that's exactly what Unknown01 did. He spammed in my topic, violated my rules and got butthurt because his posts got deleted. I even gave him an option to post it again after he will edit the rule-violations.

There is enough spam happening on every board and thread that are not self-moderated.  

True, Sherlock.




Regarding our suvey: it's quite clear that our community is in favor of keeping self-moderated topics:



That's also what I've voted for and expected.  

[KingsDen]

Deviating from the context in which this thread was created(unknown01), I will speak generally about self moderation in the forum.

I voted that self moderation should remain because without self moderating some certain posts, they could be hijacked by spammers and scammers before moderators will notice. Again, moderation work will be so tedious that it will become a full time job if self moderation is discontinued.

The only con of self moderated posts is if scammers create such a post and gets to delete every posts that attempt to bursted them. I don't actually know if a post can be self moderated in service board.
Another way scammers do this is by creating a post and then locking it to prevent discussion.

That being said, discontinuing self moderation will make this forum inhabitable, it is an idea no sane user of this precious forum should conceive.

[dkbit98]

So, what's your opinion? Self-moderation to get banned or to stay?  
Do you have more points, why self-moderation is a beneficial feature for Bitcointalk?

Self-moderated topics are great and beneficial but they can be like double-edged sword sometimes.
History showed that scammers in forum often used them to trick other people and to delete unwanted comments they don't like.
I am creating self-moderated topics only when I expect more spam comments and whenI don't want to wait for moderators to delete posts I reported.
I wouldn't waste time on opinions from people like UnknownO1

[GazetaBitcoin]

I have read your OP and I feel you are suggesting it. The topic is nice feature or should it get banned?.

Reading OP's title does not mean "reading the OP". Furthermore you quote a question without even reading it entirely. The entire question is "Should the option of self-moderated topics get banned as alleged by Unknown01 (see below) or should the option of self-moderation continue to be possible? ".

In the end again on the pretext of asking a question you are suggesting it So, what's your opinion? Self-moderation to get banned or to stay? Stop suggesting and start questioning!

Where is the suggestion here? From "So, what's your opinion?" I understand that 1miau is asking a question, not making any suggestion. Are you blind or just sig-spamming?

I would not appreciate anyone coming on my self-moderated thread and start giving me advice about spam and lolololo. If you do not like it stay away from a self-moderated thread. There is enough spam happening on every board and thread that are not self-moderated. If you want to control every spam happening on any thread then just apply for a mod job here.

To whom are you addressing here?


1miau, you should ignore this sig-spammer, as all he does is trying to look smart now, after being caught by you that he did not even read your topic and hurried to post for reaching his signature quota.

[paid2]

We should always remember that services will advertise here because Bitcointalk is a well visited online place and being a well visited online place is achieved by high quality content. Like tutorials about Bitcoin, educated developers answering questions and giving insights etc.
On the contrary, spam is very harmful because (most) educated members don't want to read spam walls.
There are many crypto related online forums out there, where paid shitposting and low quality spam has turned establieshed members away and / or new members are not interested to sign up there because it's so spammy.
And Services
So, unironically, shitposters are destroying their own source of BTC.  

Exactly! The point you make here is a very good one, and extremely important.

I find it mind-boggling to see how much signature spammers / shitposters don't understand how, in the long term, they're destroying their own business, and in the same time they don't understand that by taking the time to just read the answers and the full OP their lives would be much simpler ; because they wouldn't have to turn themselves into a cheap version of GPT to earn their BTC.

At the same time, I don't know how hard it is to recruit good posters from a campaign management point of view, but I sometimes feel a bit desperate to see that some are hired, and paid, to write crap on the forum (even after being reported to their manager by influential users).
In my opinion, it would be in everyone's interest to pay the real, effective posters more, and not take on the less good ones in the campaigns. Admittedly, there would be a little less volume of messages for the campaigns, but the remaining messages would be less drowned in a mass of absurd messages because the shitposters wouldn't come any more.
I imagine I'm neither the first nor the last to ask myself this question, but if everyone applied "Quality over quantity" for real (talking about campaign recruitment), the forum might be rid of the worst of them.

[LTU_btc]

I don't know exact reasons behind conflict between you and Unknown01 and why he is so angry at you, but any way, I don't see that he mentioned any valid reasons why self moderated topics should be banned. While you already mentioned all main reasons why it's must have thing. So, this question can't be even considered seriously now. It would be interesting if he would come here with his arguments.
I only can see one disadvantage of such topics - censorship when people can delete posts not because it's bad but simply because they don't like it or author who made it. Also, it allows to delete negative comments about service. But when you add all benefits and few little disadvantages, this question can't be even considered seriously.

[1miau]

I would not appreciate anyone coming on my self-moderated thread and start giving me advice about spam and lolololo. If you do not like it stay away from a self-moderated thread. There is enough spam happening on every board and thread that are not self-moderated. If you want to control every spam happening on any thread then just apply for a mod job here.

To whom are you addressing here?

Maybe he's talking to himself.
New strategy of sigspamming? 

1miau, you should ignore this sig-spammer, as all he does is trying to look smart now, after being caught by you that he did not even read your topic and hurried to post for reaching his signature quota.

Yes, at least he got rewarded handsomely for not reading my OP properly twice. 
As a service I would be pretty worried to spend valuable BTC for such crap posts.
But probably any sort of attention is considered a win for the service...
It's like when someone trashes our mail account with spam constantly.
We don't know. 

I find it mind-boggling to see how much signature spammers / shitposters don't understand how, in the long term, they're destroying their own business, and in the same time they don't understand that by taking the time to just read the answers and the full OP their lives would be much simpler ; because they wouldn't have to turn themselves into a cheap version of GPT to earn their BTC.

Probably, their expectation is hoping for other people to do the hard work (creating new interesting topics, tutorials quality posts etc. to keep the forum relevant in regards of clicks) similar to a school or university group project of maybe 4 people. You'll always have 1 or 2 people in your group expecting that the other 1 or 2 will do the most work. 
Maybe it's similar for our shitposters here. 

At the same time, I don't know how hard it is to recruit good posters from a campaign management point of view, but I sometimes feel a bit desperate to see that some are hired, and paid, to write crap on the forum (even after being reported to their manager by influential users).
In my opinion, it would be in everyone's interest to pay the real, effective posters more, and not take on the less good ones in the campaigns. Admittedly, there would be a little less volume of messages for the campaigns, but the remaining messages would be less drowned in a mass of absurd messages because the shitposters wouldn't come any more.
I imagine I'm neither the first nor the last to ask myself this question, but if everyone applied "Quality over quantity" for real (talking about campaign recruitment), the forum might be rid of the worst of them.

Definitely a way to go.
The downsides for managers trying to research good quality posters and reject bad ones is one thing: it's taking much more time than just enrolling a bunch applicants from the topic. For example, some managers have started to remove participants when they haven't received much Merit after a long time in their current campaign. That's a very good thing but reserching this and removing them, accepting new participants etc. takes time for a campaign manager. It's easier to continue without doing any changes.
Unfortunately, the trend is currently looking more like that there are too many open spots and many shitposters are getting in.

Recently, icopress has started to apply a new strategy, where he gives out more rewards for members with high earned Merit scores:

Code:

Sr/Hero/Legendary: 0.0001 BTC/Post
Full member: 0.00007 BTC/post

0.00012 BTC/post if you have more than 1000 merit
0.00014 BTC/post if you have more than 2000 merit
0.00016 BTC/post if you have more than 4000 merit

It's a good idea in my opinion and not much work to apply.

Finally, I believe it's a mixture of the following things to improve posting quality:

- dedicated campaign managers to kick out spammers
- campaigns to create awareness about posting quality, example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409763.0
- Merit sources only rewarding quality posts
- spammer blacklists and campaign managers considering them, example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403475.0
- self-moderated topics in spam boards
...

Probably there's even more but it's a good start already. 

[Timelord2067]

When you start your "prude police" thread it will be self moderated so you can lecture from on high so your question is kind of redundant.