Request: Disable JayJuanGee in the Wall Observer thread

[stompix]

Better solution. Remove the Wall Observer thread and the speculation section.

Careful, the WO gang is the largest left alive, seeing they will come after you and bun you!!!
It's still a nice place for shitposting memes, much like some Reddit subs, besides, signatures don't show there so if you count ut the merit begging/fishing it's just a simple topic where still a lot try to feel like in the old days, closing it down probably would mean the end of forum life for a lot.

Before I cast my vote, I need to clearly understand your use of the word "disable" wrt JayJuanGee.  I wouldn't like to see Jay's typing fingers (and toes as I'm sure he must use those as well) broken or have him end up as a quadriplegic and/or rusty-piped into compliance.  

Why a rusty pipe or a crowbar, if you want to disable JJG all you need is to change the max length of a post on this forum to something under 10 000 characters, but if I think twice about it now, it's probably going to be more traumatic than the old style disabling.

[1714603470]

1714603470

[1714603470]

1714603470

[tranthidung]

Wall Observer is an important, iconic thread of Bitcointalk but I believe if we do some changes with merit distributions, it should be applied globally on the forum. Wall Observer should not be an exceptional place to apply special rule of merit distributions. Then other threads will need the same and it will lead to endless story.

• Wall Observer new ownership?
• What to do with the wall observer thread?
• Consequently, ownership changed, signature was disabled in WO. What's next? Merit disabled, avatar disabled or newbie jail?

Is it time to consider about demerit?

There is currently no such thing as a "demerit". I'm hoping that the positive merits alone will be fine. I could add demerits pretty easily later on if necessary, though.

If hopium does not work, demerit feature should be deployed. I guess demerit can be done with not too big difference than flags.

[Hueristic]

...I believe if we do some changes with merit distributions, it should be applied globally on the forum. Wall Observer should not be an exceptional place to apply special rule of merit distributions. Then other threads will need the same and it will lead to endless story.....

Nope, people say reddit is the front page of the internet but As far as I'm concerned the WO is.

I check that thread first and foremost before anything else including my voicemail on a daily if not hourly basis.

Much news gets correlated there hidden in the mess and disseminated for those able to discern its meaning.

If its news and it didn't hit the WO then its not news in my book.

[Stalker22]

...I believe if we do some changes with merit distributions, it should be applied globally on the forum. Wall Observer should not be an exceptional place to apply special rule of merit distributions. Then other threads will need the same and it will lead to endless story.....

Nope, people say reddit is the front page of the internet but As far as I'm concerned the WO is.

I check that thread first and foremost before anything else including my voicemail on a daily if not hourly basis.

Much news gets correlated there hidden in the mess and disseminated for those able to discern its meaning.

If its news and it didn't hit the WO then its not news in my book.

Interesting perspective. It never crossed my mind to view the WO thread in that light. I tried to keep up with it for a bit, but I eventually gave up due to the overwhelming spam that I had to wade through to find anything valuable.

I could give it another shot, but it feels like I would need to do a lot of filtering and ignoring to make it worthwhile.

[PowerGlove]

I think The WO should have its own Ban power (within WO thread) and then we can just lose those twatter spammers permanently.

This is a good idea and I can conceptualize it in my head. Instead of there being a "bump" button on the thread, there is a "vote to ban" button under each post by a member under Sr. Member. It would be visible to pre-ordained members of a Council of WO, maybe 20 of the most active WO posters (ideally limited to Hero Members and Legendaries). If a shitposter receives "vote to ban" clicks from 5 or more council members, they are automatically banned from posting in the WO for a month.

i kinda like it (the vote thing), but instead of a thread ban how about that persons posts are automatically hidden to everyone, but with a "unhide" button so that suckers peeps can still see it if they want to.

basically it would be a community ignore thing that individuals can override.

I think the three of you (Hueristic, nutildah, vapourminer) just hit on something important.

Having some way for the community to flag/hide shitty posts other than by reporting them to the mods (and hoping that they see things the same way) is an idea worth fleshing out.

I'm gonna call this proposal Project NOPE™ for Non-Organic Post in my Estimation.

Basically, there'll be a little NOPE button on each post, and if you click it, it'll hide that post for you and also for anyone that has added you to their NOPE list, kind of like a reverse-curation system with trust list vibes. If you don't trust someone's judgment with flagging shitty posts (and they're on the NOPE list of someone that you do trust with that) then you would exclude them from your list with a ~ (or tweak your depth setting).

I could see a feature like that cleaning up the forum real good. (Don't add me to your NOPE lists, because I'd wear that fuggin' button out.)

Edit: I suppose it's not super obvious how the above idea relates to WO being a known "soft spot" for merit fishing. I think the idea is probably more valuable to the forum as a whole than it is to WO specifically (but it would still help there, IMHO). Basically, you'd trust other people (of your own choosing, though there is a version of this idea with DT1/DT2 analogs: DN1/DN2) to hide posts from you that aren't worth reading. You can't merit posts that you don't see, so if the people on your NOPE list do a thorough enough job of hiding posts before they can be merited, then the people making those posts will keep coming up empty and eventually give up (I appreciate how silly it sounds to make other people responsible for hiding posts from you that you would have merited if only you had seen them, but I'm specifically addressing the way accounts try to take advantage of the willy-nilly way merit is handed out on WO and not talking about how this feature is intended to be used on the rest of the forum). Any gripes about this feature have equivalent gripes in terms of the trust system; if you say "Okay, but who gets to decide what makes a post worth reading?" then the equivalent gripe would be "Okay, but who gets to decide what constitutes active trust feedback?". One interesting elaboration would be to allow people on "DN1" to NOPE an entire profile instead of just individual posts.

[LoyceV]

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

Please do.

I'd like to see that list updated, I'd be interested to see how many I've fucked up on.
I have a notoriously fast ignore trigger so...

Also I think you should order that list (in the thread) by percentage rather than absolute which seems to me to be a much better metric as it can be incorrectly interpreted as displayed. Obviously those who distribute larger amounts will hit the scum more often then those that don't distribute at all.

Now if I wanted to start a witchunt, I'd start at those with the highest percentage.

Here's the update: How many banned users have you merited?

(click for the full version)
    1. 231 (8.66%) banned users merited by OgNasty (details)
    2. 125 (4.66%) banned users merited by JayJuanGee (details)
    3. 115 (5.33%) banned users merited by Ratimov (details)
    4. 112 (4.51%) banned users merited by DdmrDdmr (details)
    5. 108 (5.14%) banned users merited by hugeblack (details)
    6. 99 (3.39%) banned users merited by vapourminer (details)
    7. 94 (6.15%) banned users merited by klarki (details)
    8. 93 (3.23%) banned users merited by suchmoon (details)
    9. 92 (7.60%) banned users merited by dbshck (details)
   10. 90 (7.21%) banned users merited by paxmao (details)
   11. 85 (7.90%) banned users merited by CryptopreneurBrainboss (details)
   12. 82 (2.78%) banned users merited by LoyceV (details)
   13. 77 (3.41%) banned users merited by xandry (details)
   14. 76 (7.58%) banned users merited by EFS (details)
   15. 72 (9.51%) banned users merited by chimk (details)
   16. 71 (2.37%) banned users merited by ETFbitcoin (details)
   17. 69 (12.36%) banned users merited by TimeTeller (details)
   18. 67 (4.88%) banned users merited by LFC_Bitcoin (details)
   19. 66 (63.46%) banned users merited by foserfox Banned! (details)
   20. 65 (6.29%) banned users merited by bones261 (details)
   21. 62 (2.56%) banned users merited by o_e_l_e_o (details)
   22. 60 (6.30%) banned users merited by theymos (details)
   23. 60 (3.70%) banned users merited by Halab (details)
   24. 57 (9.16%) banned users merited by tk808 (details)
   25. 56 (8.34%) banned users merited by Jet Cash (details)
(click for the full version)

I don't think sorting by percentage is useful: thousands of users who sent only a few Merits have a 100% score to banned users.
Many users with a very high percentage have already been banned.

Disclaimer

banned users can still have good posts. Meriting them isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Rizzrack]

Like Cyndi Lauper said in one of her songs: "bitcoiners just want to have fun"  

As people with "enough" money can give away for any cause they see fit, the same can be said about merit.

Let's be hones: some boards are harder to get merits than others, like Technical Discussions vs Meta. It is what it is...

We either accept it or talk about changing the rules with complicated scenarios that theymos might never implement: like doing for merit something similar to flags. Users can merit a post and their smerit decreases but the merited user actually receives the merit when at least 3 users merit the same post.

It may be a good idea, it may be stupid... but one thing is for sure: it's damn hard to come up with a fair algorithm that changes the game for everyone from that point on without any retroactive impact.

One of the last banned account I merited was for warning users that a certain ann thread had a wallet with malware. The irony is that the same user was banned for posting a malware infected wallet himself a few days later. It can happen to anyone. Doesn't seem fair to judge someone solely on this metric imho.

[Hueristic]

Should I update How many banned users have you merited??

Please do.

I'd like to see that list updated, I'd be interested to see how many I've fucked up on.
I have a notoriously fast ignore trigger so...

Also I think you should order that list (in the thread) by percentage rather than absolute which seems to me to be a much better metric as it can be incorrectly interpreted as displayed. Obviously those who distribute larger amounts will hit the scum more often then those that don't distribute at all.

Now if I wanted to start a witchunt, I'd start at those with the highest percentage.

Here's the update: How many banned users have you merited?

(click for the full version)
    1. 231 (8.66%) banned users merited by OgNasty (details)
    2. 125 (4.66%) banned users merited by JayJuanGee (details)
    3. 115 (5.33%) banned users merited by Ratimov (details)
    4. 112 (4.51%) banned users merited by DdmrDdmr (details)
    5. 108 (5.14%) banned users merited by hugeblack (details)
...
(click for the full version)

I don't think sorting by percentage is useful: thousands of users who sent only a few Merits have a 100% score to banned users.
Many users with a very high percentage have already been banned.

Disclaimer

banned users can still have good posts. Meriting them isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Of course it is, outliers are easily identified and culled from the dataset.

Looking at the data as a percentage rather than an absolute is a much better way to get an accurate picture of trends over a long period of time and the longer the trend line the more accurate that metric becomes.

The issue with sorting in absolute order is the fact that not all users are dealt an even amount of cards to begin with.

Also highlighting sources in that list would be meaningful as well.

[nutildah]

Of course it is, outliers are easily identified and culled from the dataset.

For those who are interested, the average for the top 256 (9 or more banned merited users) is a whopping 16.3%, which seems crazy high, but that's what it is. One standard deviation is 18.5%, so that means "abnormally high" would be above 34.8%.

Interestingly, 24/45 users that fall into the "abnormally high" category are banned. It seems most of these were accounts purchased to advertise an ICO or worse, and then they distributed the merits that came with it to a bunch of sockpuppets for the sake of bumping their thread.

I would have posted this in LoyceV's thread with the data but its locked.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Be careful here, there's a very thin line between a parody and plagiarism. Since it's you, and not a random signature spammer, I hope you'll get the benefit of the doubt.

I will suggest to put the whole thing in quote except the last line. There will be someone always who will find a wrong here and will want to accuse BobLawblaw for plagiarism or even want to make him low for it. Haven't we seen it not very long ago?

@BobLawblaw hope you are reading brother.

[LoyceV]

Of course it is, outliers are easily identified and culled from the dataset.

Looking at the data as a percentage rather than an absolute is a much better way to get an accurate picture of trends over a long period of time and the longer the trend line the more accurate that metric becomes.

The issue with sorting in absolute order is the fact that not all users are dealt an even amount of cards to begin with.

How's this:

Sorted by percentage
This is the same list as yesterday, but sorted by percentage (and limited to users who sent at least 10 sMerit).

(click for the full version)
    1. 100.00% (7) banned users merited by Artemsv Banned! (details)
    2. 100.00% (5) banned users merited by alexvilis Banned! (details)
    3. 100.00% (5) banned users merited by Jekwizor Banned! (details)
    4. 100.00% (5) banned users merited by upline (details)
    5. 100.00% (5) banned users merited by masstahcoiner Banned! (details)
    6. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by hrbt Banned! (details)
    7. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by identifyuser Banned! (details)
    8. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by cryptojaani (details)
    9. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by alexberezov Banned! (details)
   10. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by senin Banned! (details)
   11. 100.00% (4) banned users merited by shezu007 Banned! (details)
   12. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by Pump N Dead (details)
   13. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by Lesya2015 Banned! (details)
   14. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by Guardsman Banned! (details)
   15. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by Bdstar Banned! (details)
   16. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by crocozino Banned! (details)
   17. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by kovaa Banned! (details)
   18. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by USScrypto Banned! (details)
   19. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by yeyz20171031 Banned! (details)
   20. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by romandos86 (details)
   21. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by geoneojapan Banned! (details)
   22. 100.00% (3) banned users merited by xiao2017 Banned! (details)
   23. 100.00% (2) banned users merited by cercitolga4545 Banned! (details)
   24. 100.00% (2) banned users merited by NoNetwork (details)
   25. 100.00% (2) banned users merited by thunderbitz2717 Banned! (details)

In this list, JayJuanGee is at a respectable 2560^th place, slightly better (if there is such a thing) than theymos:

 2281. 6.30% (60) banned users merited by theymos (details)

 2560. 4.66% (125) banned users merited by JayJuanGee (details)

Also highlighting sources in that list would be meaningful as well.

I can't really do that: I don't have an exact list of Merit sources, and they've changed over the years.

I would have posted this in LoyceV's thread with the data but its locked.

The data dump topic is locked, but belongs to this post in How many banned users have you merited?. Discussion can happen In that topic. I've clarified this in the data dump topic now.

[Rikafip]

I will suggest to put the whole thing in quote except the last line. There will be someone always who will find a wrong here and will want to accuse BobLawblaw for plagiarism or even want to make him low for it. Haven't we seen it not very long ago?

Those are two different cases imho as this thread is obviously  written in a ironic/parody tone (well not obvious enough based on some of the comments here) and even if someone reports it, I don't think that there's any danger for OP and if there is then this forum became a sad place.

[Y3shot]

I think The WO should have its own Ban power (within WO thread) and then we can just lose those twatter spammers permanently.

The Fact Twatter does not even allow the reading of a thread without signing in make that cesspool not worth the effort to click the link anymore so I'd love to see all links to it blocked ala imgur.

*separated this from previous post as its a completely separate discussion.

I don't see any reason why the wall observer section should be shutdown,  their are things that can be done for wall observer section to be clean and put in order which is by Implementing rules that members must stick to, it will help reduce the rate at which members abuse it, and if the section is being monitored it will surely help to be at the standard which the forum wants it to be.

Members do whatever they want in the board because the rules are not followed by actions. Their are still members in wall observer that are genuine with meaningful discussion.  Strick rules will make fake ones to stay away.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I will suggest to put the whole thing in quote except the last line. There will be someone always who will find a wrong here and will want to accuse BobLawblaw for plagiarism or even want to make him low for it. Haven't we seen it not very long ago?

Those are two different cases imho as this thread is obviously  written in a ironic/parody tone (well not obvious enough based on some of the comments here) and even if someone reports it, I don't think that there's any danger for OP and if there is then this forum became a sad place.

Moderators are not the concerns. Concerns are the forum users. They will use anything against you without considering a background of a mistake or parody [if you want to call it]. If moderators were the concerns then I would edit those posts after noticing it and since I did not do it, you would see my account was banned for plagiarism so far. None happened.

[Rikafip]

Moderators are not the concerns. Concerns are the forum users.

Well, moderators are those who decide who gets banned, not users and I'm pretty sure they will see what's going on here if someone who takes this forum way too seriously decides to report it.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Quite an ironic topic, talking about the person who is next to you in the third person. JJG never responded if I'm not mistaken. Why decide what can be done to solve the problem when the person himself, who, as it seems to someone, creates a problem, is undoubtedly reading this? Have you tried asking him for his opinion? Do you think that JJG is a robot, and you can just deprive the robot of one of its abilities?
The Wall Observer branch is considered anarchic on the forum; if plagiarism and low-quality posts are allowed there, then the spread of merit is completely legal. I think that the merits are exchanged by the alternative accounts themselves within this thread. A few examples can be shown, and JJG is just the icing on the cake; using merit in this thread is tantamount to getting likes on Facebook.
The problem is those people who use the forum dishonestly.

[Gladitorcomeback]

Oh probably second or third thread here in Meta against wall observer or we can say limited Jay from sending Merit. I visited many times there but didn't made any post yet. I agree that most the posts are spam and just copied Bitcoin news from twitter with images.I think removing full thread or disabling anyone to send merit is not the right solution. Other threads can be created and infact everyone has own mindset of giving merit. Jay is giving only one Merit for each post he like and i think it will not be more profitable spammer to grow quick. I think the better way is to give neutral to those member who continuesly making spam there and that's all.

Have you tried asking him for his opinion?

I remembered that once Nutildah requested him to stop helping spammers and below us the answer given by Jay

Yes.. propose to theymos that merits are "turned off" in the WO thread and see what happens.

Maybe, also (or as a potential back-up plan.... PlanB so to speak), you should propose that he (or anyone else who might "care") removes me (aka yours truly, aka this here cat) as a source (of problemas), since I don't seem to "know how" to exercise the discretion of my own wee widdo selfie verry goodie? 
or alternatively, you may well want to proclaim that I am not able to sufficiently/adequately identify which post(s) in these here parts MOAR deserve(s) dddddeeeeeeeee wwwwuuuuuvvvvvvvssssss (#nohomo) in accordance with your own views upon these kinds of wuvie duvie matters.

Or alternatively, even to that last alternative, you might consider showing the powers that be within this here forum that this place, WO and otherwise, needs a "merit czar," and you happen to know just the right peep who is ready, willing and able to take on such duties. 

[SamReomo]

I have personally noticed that JJG has been doing really great on the forum and he has been meriting many posts outside of the WO thread.

That's great. He should continue to do that anywhere except the WO thread which is basically unmoderated and thus littered with the droppings of merit pigeons.

I would personally keep quiet in such matter because if someone like JJG is meriting the posts in WO then he maybe doing that because some of those memes maybe related Bitcoin and its price. I know that sometimes it's a little bit annoying when we see a user getting merited just by posting memes, but the members of the WO thread like memes that are related to Bitcoin and their love for Bitcoin makes them to merit those meme containing posts without any discrimination. I think they have been doing that kind of post meriting for a long time and no body has ever opposed their actions, and I also think that theymos is also aware of the activity in WO and he also hasn't taken any action to suppress the activity of that thread. I know that the ones who are posting those memes without proper referencing should be reported, but the ones who're properly referencing their posts may not be suppressed for the activity.

You maybe right in your approach because you don't want those members to be merited who aren't contributing to the forum like other contributing members. Well, in that case I also agree with your thinking, but such kind of activity is also taking place outside of WO thread and every member of the forum is aware of that. If we look at the local boards or local board threads then there are many such users who are taking advantage of the members and are getting merited for their posts. I'm not favoring JJG or any other member of the WO thread and I'm also not against the ones who created this thread, but I don't think that disabling someone like JJG from that thread would be any good to the forum because he has been a long time member of the forum and has contributed a lot to the forum. I hope that any decision taken will be in favor of the forum and we all will support those decisions.

[Ryu_Ar1]

I actually don't really follow the Wall Observer thread discussions but I still like to see some funny things and random chatter that even though some people might consider it spam, it is one of the entertainments that I always see because apart from memes or news that are just copied from some social media but I think it is still very worth discussing and seeing because some still provide clear sources where it was taken from.

Speaking of JayJuanGee he is one whose posts are very tiring for the eyes because of reading them but it's actually very useful and I learnt a lot from him with knowledge especially about bitcoin which is very good indeed. As for his involvement in giving merit too I think he knows that those he gives merit to are worthy especially I like the way he is consistent in giving 1 although sometimes 2 but very rarely to give 2 in one post which actually reflects consistency and he always reads seriously about what he does both on Wall Observer and in other threads.
Banning him I think is not authority because it will only limit someone's activities even though it is undeniable that there will be people who take advantage of it to farm but I think banning JayGuanGee is like limiting someone's actions on the forum.

[Hueristic]

I actually don't really follow the Wall Observer thread discussions but I still like to see some funny things and random chatter that even though some people might consider it spam, it is one of the entertainments that I always see because apart from memes or news that are just copied from some social media but I think it is still very worth discussing and seeing because some still provide clear sources where it was taken from.

Speaking of JayJuanGee he is one whose posts are very tiring for the eyes because of reading them but it's actually very useful and I learnt a lot from him with knowledge especially about bitcoin which is very good indeed. As for his involvement in giving merit too I think he knows that those he gives merit to are worthy especially I like the way he is consistent in giving 1 although sometimes 2 but very rarely to give 2 in one post which actually reflects consistency and he always reads seriously about what he does both on Wall Observer and in other threads.
Banning him I think is not authority because it will only limit someone's activities even though it is undeniable that there will be people who take advantage of it to farm but I think banning JayGuanGee is like limiting someone's actions on the forum.

Yeah baby, Ban the Heretic!



Jesus Christ have you ever heard of the saying

"Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt"?


You need to heed that phrase.