Is there a limit on the disinformation, FOMO,...that can be dumped in the forum?

[paxmao]

I am thinking of one very particular user that has the habit of wall-texting otherwise interesting thread making absolutely wild claims, linking "conspiration" sites like 5 times a day and just making any claim that you could wildly dream of without any - not going to say proof - evidence whatsoever even of the lowest quality or minimal credibility.

Is there a limit to what can be dumped in posts, day after day?

[dzungmobile]

Report those posts if you see they are useless.

It can be plagiarism, AI content generated, whatsoever but if useless, reporting is your choice.

Disinformation, FOMO, FUD, it is objective assessment and it is hard to judge only by one forum member. Sometimes, even moderator will disagree with you.

Lastly forum is freedom of speech so no censoring or limitation but useless posts will be trashed.

[sheenshane]

..linking "conspiration" sites like 5 times a day

That belongs to a spamming category, you can report it to the moderator in that way.  Is there a referral link included?
Just hit the button below "Report to moderator".

Unfortunately, that's an old problem here and I tend to agree with the reply above.
This is a forum where everyone can freely speak whatever they like as long as isn't against the forum rules, there's no limit to posting.

Can you drop the link to this so that we can judge it too?

[philipma1957]

also is it in a section that signatures are viewed and paid for.

his useless info may encourage posting of people that disagree with it. he or she may be increasing postings with his post and maybe some opposing viewpoints are good to read.

[1miau]

I believe I know which spammer / troll paxmao talks about here and if it's indeed the candidate in question, I believe he talks about, paxmao is 100% right because it's a very "bad" troll.  
There's no specific rule yet about such case (spreading lies) but for some particular cases it would be useful to have such a rule.
I still believe we can apply current rules, depending on content (or lack of thereof):

1. 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.

Especially BOLD parts.
In my opinion, just a link and a quote from another website without any added comment is also "low value" comment / spam.

2. No off-topic posts.

Some time, such posts are off-topic.

3. No trolling.

Very often, these posts could be handled as "trolling" because spreading lies, derailing a topic or posting the same crap again and again is definitely "trolling".

Quoted from Bitcointak rules: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

However, a new rule about this wouldn't hurt. Some trolls are well known to cause upheaval, they are just here to link or quote news in press section or even outright disinformation, they are not here to discuss Bitcoin in a meaningful way, they are just here to link content from other sites, or shill a certain fraud service / shitcoin / ICO / NFT / whatever (but not scam so we can't tag them).
At least, we can add a neutral tag to make signature campaign mangers aware that rewarding such candidates via paid posts is not beneficial for the forum.

But even then: the section, where the troll, that I believe paxmao refers to, is mostly active, lacks of any active moderator, so even currently rule-breaking spam like pyramid quotes or low-value spam or off-topic, isn't getting removed currently.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Over the years, remedies to incessant trolling and spamming has been created - I believe that's prolly how the BIG WHITE MAN came about with the "report to moderator" button...
I also had recent confirmations that these reported post are sometimes ignored by 'em MODS, which has - in turns - lessen the frequency by atleast 1^1/2 percentage... How then can we curb situations like the above ones??... I believe it's not, in anyway informative thus, unnecessary.

Sandra 🧑‍🦰