Decentralized solution to signature spam! Or maybe not ....

[stompix]

We all know it, we have been discussing this for ages,  signature spam bad, we need a solution, the solution is either too complicated or doesn't solve much
So, one more try at it:

The current problems:
-managers that don't care about spam as some of them are not even true users of this forum
-avalanche of quasi qualified posts that get counted and not reported /deleted just because  are not 100% spam, just 99.9% spam
-lack of reporting and lack of incentive from the moderation team, I really still can't process the last post from hilariousadnco about how staff is getting paid for what

To date theymos has agreed to
-decentralize the trust system
-create a system to somewhat prevent spammers from racking up, again quasi-decentralized as we still have merit sources

So, how about we combine what we have?
Each user gets a new list for a new feature, just as with the trust list but called quality posters or whatever
-you add a user you believe he is a good poster to it
-you add ~user if you think he is a shitposter

Based on the merits earned by the one adding you or ~ you, you get a post score, if the score turns negative your signature space is disabled!
To offer a lifeline for newbies or prevent one rogue actor from influencing this alone we could do (earned merit - post score) > 0
We can change the formula and replace merit with trust score,  whatever, details!

Now arguments, obviously biased ones:

Pro:
-completely decentralized
-incentives for genuine discussions as you need to make the others feel like they are talking to a real person not a 4 line xerox machine
-abuses are easily identified both ways as the lists will be public just like trust lists
-any coalition of shitposters voting for each other like merit farming can be easily identified and punished into oblivion
-reduces the merit farming, merit begging , merit whatsoever
-it lets the community clean itself
-no need for extra moderation
-we already have the trust system in place this is easy to implement as it will be just a cloned function
-we get rid of tags for being a spammer shitposters etc, and all the discussions if one should or should not tag someone for it
Important:
Unlike merit, which is permanent, this will stop shitposters that have weaseled their way to legendary status!

Against:
-the idea comes from stompix, stompix bad
-someone actually needs to write this in code
-shitposters will be angry
-I'm baking myself right now in the sun with the 4th beer opened so I can't think of any anymore!

[Revolution2025]

<<<<my fair opinion>>>>

stompix stop abusing the trust system by giving inaccurate trust feedbacks

you can build your own forum and implement all the rules you want then you can invite us to join. think about it hypocrite

[LoyceV]

So, how about we combine what we have?
Each user gets a new list for a new feature, just as with the trust list but called quality posters or whatever
-you add a user you believe he is a good poster to it
-you add ~user if you think he is a shitposter

Wouldn't it be better to bring back the glowing Ignore button? I don't want to have another "list" to maintain.

Based on the merits earned by the one adding you or ~ you, you get a post score, if the score turns negative your signature space is disabled!

A ban would be so much easier

[stompix]

Wouldn't it be better to bring back the glowing Ignore button? I don't want to have another "list" to maintain.

You already have an ignore list you always mention of having people on  
That ignore feature might get abused with someone creating 1000 accounts and ignoring one user, we would need to have a weight score on it to prevent abuse so it gets just as complicated.

Also, some people are not there because they are shitposters, they are there because people don't agree with them..
Not really a quality indicator!

Based on the merits earned by the one adding you or ~ you, you get a post score, if the score turns negative your signature space is disabled!

A ban would be so much easier

I'm not even dreaming of Theymos implementing or agreeing to something that radical, even this "solution" is not even close to what I want, it's what I think has a slim chance of maybe making it to reality!

[BlackBoss_]

To date theymos has agreed to
-decentralize the trust system
-create a system to somewhat prevent spammers from racking up, again quasi-decentralized as we still have merit sources

When merit system was abused by merit sources and local boards, shit posters in local boards, it's already broken and failed to prevent spammers to rank up. It's still quasi-decentralized but merits are no longer for good posts but for shit posters from spammers in local boards.

So, how about we combine what we have?
Each user gets a new list for a new feature, just as with the trust list but called quality posters or whatever
-you add a user you believe he is a good poster to it
-you add ~user if you think he is a shitposter

It's very complicated and can be abused too. Like how merit system was abused, trust system was abused.

The better way is demerit system that is a spam-counter-back system and why don't think about Demerit sources?
LoyceV's deMerit source application.

They ranked up by shitposts, demerit them. If they want to complain, they can make a thread in Reputation board, make a poll, then let's see how their appeal will be approved and get their merit back or something worse coming.

It's not hard for the community to agree with each other that shitposts are shitposts even they received merit.

[logfiles]

Nothing will ever be perfect. We shall create a new system on top of the other, but people will still not be satisfied and complain. To me, I think the forum is not really badly off as it was some years back especially before the introduction of the merit system. Even when the merit system was introduced, some people abused it but at least the spam and account farming was massively reduced.

Right now we have tools at our disposal. If you find a user who spams or makes pointless posts, report his posts and the mods will do the job. I have one user I kept reporting, and the mods kept deleting his shitposts. He seems to have almost given up if he has not yet been temp banned.

The managers can also use other tools to identify good poster and hire them like this one -

So I have my question regarding the decentralized solution
1. How do you cater for people who buy copper accounts and want to advertise their service?

[Alvin_talk]

This could become a tool for retaliatory feedback just as we see in the way some users utilise the trust system, except if it configured in such a way that the users who list you remain anonymous, something similar to reporting.

Personally, I think if reporting cannot stop sig spam then this method will not likely be the solution too. Just like with reporting, many users may tend to feel reluctant to list other users, thus defeating the aim we seek to achieve. If managers can just hire without requiring minimum weekly post quota, sig spam will reduce drastically in this forum IMO.

[Repeat06]

You are asking to launch the Trust System but why are you not encouraging anyone to report to the moderator? The people who are involved in fraud have many accounts and they are not just one person, they are a gang and many of them work together and work through many accounts. So whenever you launch the Trust System, they will give that Trust to each other.

I think it is better to increase the number of moderators a little and encourage each person so that everyone reports to the moderator if they see a bad or low-quality post.

[MarryWithBTC]

Nothing will ever be perfect. We shall create a new system on top of the other, but people will still not be satisfied and complain...

xxx
-we already have the trust system in place this is easy to implement as it will be just a cloned function
xxx

Even the trust system is not perfect. Cloning it to create another is simply creating a system on top of the other as said by logfiles.

[The Cryptovator]

The current problems:
-managers that don't care about spam as some of them are not even true users of this forum
-avalanche of quasi qualified posts that get counted and not reported /deleted just because  are not 100% spam, just 99.9% spam
-lack of reporting and lack of incentive from the moderation team, I really still can't process the last post from hilariousadnco about how staff is getting paid for what

It is the manager's responsibility to review the signature campaign post and determine its acceptance. The signature campaign is directly not related to the forum function anyway; it's the manager's responsibility to select quality users. Rather, you may raise concerns against the managers who have been accepting spammers, and then the community will look at the matter.

I am not agreeing with this idea. Nowadays spammers can't grow their accounts due to the merit system. How will spammers rank up unless they earn merits? Could you please clarify the need for another system to prevent spammers, particularly in relation to the signature campaigns? If you see a spam post, then probably you can report it to the moderator; that's a big help for the forum as well. We really don't need some other system and to maintain another list, or else we may need to maintain many more lists.

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

No matter how you try to change the system flaws are actually inevitable. Take a look at the merit system Theymos introduced it was a very fine idea to reduce spam but currently it's not as effective as it was a couple years ago. Personally the biggest fix you could suggest for spam reduction is actually strict moderation.

You can not fix the spam issue flawlessly no matter how structured your suggestion seems to be and it's always a matter of time before the loopholes eventually surface again and get taken advantage of.