Signature Ban Power

[The Cryptovator]

I was more recently in discussion with nutildah about how to address the signal-to-noise issue, and he volunteered to help, in general terms. It was my idea to give him sigban permissions in particular.

So there is no process or requirement yet to get a signature ban? That means there is currently no standard for how a user can obtain the power of a signature ban. It totally depends on you; either me or someone would get the signature ban power. So if someone or I want to get this power, I have to write to you. Would it be a public request thread or just a private discussion?

It's better if you set a primary standard to write you about getting signature-ban power. I think more users are interested.

[Hhampuz]

The ability to add signature bans was added a long time ago as something that all global moderators and admins can do.

I was more recently in discussion with nutildah about how to address the signal-to-noise issue, and he volunteered to help, in general terms. It was my idea to give him sigban permissions in particular.

I do appreciate this answer and there is a key piece of information here, the volunteering part.

[theymos]

That means there is currently no standard for how a user can obtain the power of a signature ban. It totally depends on you; either me or someone would get the signature ban power. So if someone or I want to get this power, I have to write to you. Would it be a public request thread or just a private discussion? 

There's not generally a strict process for this kind of thing. Anyone can suggest anything to me, publicly or via PM.

But I'm probably not going to add anyone else in the next 6 months at least. I want to see how nutildah's particular methodology pans out, so I want to give him a lot of discretion, and not add more people who would complicate matters. So far, I think that he's doing a great job. He made one definite mistake with arallmuus, but mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with a new process affecting so many users, and that mistake was reversed after not-too-long.

[dkbit98]

So far, I think that he's doing a great job. He made one definite mistake with arallmuus, but mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with a new process affecting so many users, and that mistake was reversed after not-too-long.

I am not sure most of the forum members would agree with you about this, even if they are not affected by signature ban.
There is a good reason why ALL moderators have this ability to sig ban members, and nobody was doing it in mass like he is.
I am not against sig-bans per se, but I think other moderators need to approve them first.

[Rikafip]

There is a good reason why ALL moderators have this ability to sig ban members, and nobody was doing it in mass like he is.

Not all moderators have sig ban powers, but instead only global moderators and admins, which means only a few people overall.

The ability to add signature bans was added a long time ago as something that all global moderators and admins can do.

I am not against sig-bans per se, but I think other moderators need to approve them first

As per nutildah, they have power to reverse them.

[cryptofrka]

But I'm probably not going to add anyone else in the next 6 months at least. I want to see how nutildah's particular methodology pans out, so I want to give him a lot of discretion, and not add more people who would complicate matters. So far, I think that he's doing a great job. He made one definite mistake with arallmuus, but mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with a new process affecting so many users, and that mistake was reversed after not-too-long.

Nobody minds the task, not many mind the job that was done. Many mind the attitude, and attitude is important when power is granted.

Some would also say that the ban wave looks biased, at least according to what nutildah alone announced:





23.5% from the poll against 68% from the actual sigban data.

[Upgrade00]

So far, I think that he's doing a great job. He made one definite mistake with arallmuus, but mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with a new process affecting so many users, and that mistake was reversed after not-too-long.

I can't agree or disagree with this cause I will admit I have not gone through each user that was banned to know if I think they were deserving of it. I see only the ones that pop up and get attention and with those I've disagreed with few more than just the one you mentioned.

What i disagree with fundamentally is the approach of having a subjective set of rules that leads to a signature ban, granted it was said that they still all get double checked before any action is taken but the criteria seemed to a be targeting a particular board and putting too much emphasis on things like merits which has never been so emphasized on the forum. These are what led to arallmus getting flagged and his initial ban appeal was rejected at first, only revised after push backs from "big" accounts on the forum. This should not be necessary for a mistake to be fixed.

I think there should have been more transparency in the process and a willingness to understand how different boards operate to know how to pick out members who are net negative to the forum.

[stompix]

23.5% from the poll against 68% from the actual sigban data.

You're missing the fact that you could have selected multiple options, there are 132 votes from 72 voters.
 
Depending on how you calculate those
- raw numbers 31 votes from 72 users
- excluding the ones opposing cleaning 31 votes out of 62 wanting a cleanup
it's 43% and 50%.

Also, I think the percentage should be correlated with the size of the board

Gambling board 186164 posts in 120 days, 24948 made by sig-banned users, 13.40%
Economics 21511 posts in 120 days,  2310 made by sig-banned users, 10.73%
It stops being so biased, right?

To be honest, my complain would be about how he manages to go after and ban users who have barely made any posts in the last 6 months when there are some fat, juicy targets right there, screaming in all caps to let people know they have no clue which teams play in which championship or what the actual game last week was.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I have to admit, I don’t like it. If somebody is making 10 word shit posts repeatedly or posting in English speaking sections of the forum really poorly then maybe it’s something I would support but I think some people have been harshly treated.

Perhaps a decision to issue a sig ban should have to receive 3 out of 5 mod/admin approvals to enforce it. nutildah  is a very smart guy, that’s always been obvious. I think he should have a board of 5 admin/mods where he suggests a potential sig ban and requires 3 out of 5 to enforce it. That would clear up any bias or witch hunts.

I think the criteria should be really quite harsh for a sig ban though. This forum has a lot of history, it’s responsible for driving a lot of Bitcoin adoption. Some people from poor countries really need the $100 a week or whatever. You have to remember that when considering taking food off their table.

[TryNinja]

Nobody minds the task, not many mind the job that was done. Many mind the attitude, and attitude is important when power is granted.

Some would also say that the ban wave looks biased, at least according to what nutildah alone announced:

23.5% from the poll against 68% from the actual sigban data.

Wouldn’t that be because most signature campaigns nowadays require you to post on the Gambling board? If you’re here to farm the sht of the campaigns, you probably need to post there.

I have to admit, I don’t like it. If somebody is making 10 word shit posts repeatedly or posting in English speaking sections of the forum really poorly then maybe it’s something I would support but I think some people have been harshly treated.

If you don’t mind, would you PM me a few usernames that, in your opinion, shouldn’t have been banned? So far I actually agreed to all of the bans I checked (I didn’t look at all 180+ bans). The only one I wasn’t too keen about was the guy that got unbanned.

I would like to understand the mind of who thinks X post is fine, and if I’m able to change his idea if I think the post is a shitpost.

Regarding the “people need to put food on their table”, remember theymos said this forum isn’t a charity. People should respect the forum if it is giving them a chance to earn 1x, 2x their local salary. Shitposting is spitting on the hand that feeds you.

[SuperBitMan]

So far, I think that he's doing a great job. He made one definite mistake with arallmuus, but mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with a new process affecting so many users, and that mistake was reversed after not-too-long.

I am not against sig-bans per se, but I think other moderators need to approve them first.

We really don’t need that, what we need is a very clear rule and evidence of posts that lead to a signature ban.
Take for instance the permanent ban, everyone knows that when you plagiarize you are going to be given a permanent ban.
When someone that was given a permanent ban creates an alternative account to ask why he was ban, the plagiarism post he did will be brought out as the reason for his permanent ban.

The signature ban should be done in that regard. When a user appeals for signature ban those that ban him or her should be able to provide 5 to 10 of his or her posts that lead to the ban.
If it is not done this way the act of those giving the signature ban will always be subject to scrutiny and criticism.

[joker_josue]

I think the criteria should be really quite harsh for a sig ban though. This forum has a lot of history, it’s responsible for driving a lot of Bitcoin adoption. Some people from poor countries really need the $100 a week or whatever. You have to remember that when considering taking food off their table.

I don't think it's appropriate to do that kind of analysis. Because what you receive in BTC on the forum should be seen as a contribution for your participation in the community. As a side job, not as a main job.

If someone truly benefits significantly from those $100 a week, then they should strive to maintain that income as much as possible. For this reason, he will be careful not to do anything that could jeopardize his position, while at the same time wanting to protect the forum as much as possible so that everything continues smoothly.

Therefore, someone abusing these community advantages, harming the entire community by having 3 or 4 alternative accounts to obtain this benefit, means they are taking away the opportunity for 3 or 4 other people to also truly benefit from the community.

It's normal for someone who suffers some kind of punishment to dislike it and feel hurt. Even "friends" can feel the same way. They might even feel it was unfair. The solution is to prove through actions that the punishment was wrong.

As TryNinja commented, practically everyone who was banned didn't even appeal. And those who did appeal, most summarized their appeal as: it was unfair, I appeal for it to be reviewed.

Finally, perhaps at first all of this may seem more radical. That's normal. Over time, all processes are improved and things will become clearer.

[cryptofrka]

Wouldn’t that be because most signature campaigns nowadays require you to post on the Gambling board? If you’re here to farm the sht of the campaigns, you probably need to post there.

Sure, but then the whole idea is wrong from the start. And the guy implementing it, by his own admission, rarely ever set a foot in there.

__________________________

Here's a thought - there should be a 'Paid pools' child board in the Gambling section. Naturally, sig campaign managers will focus on that - as will sponsors.
To get a good spot in the campaign, posting there would practically become mandatory - which means paying the participation fee - which means having a bit of skin in the game and effectively contributing to the circular economy.

Currently the financial threshold to cross to earn from the forum is 0. Good members in gambling pay up to 20 mBTC in buyin fees for various competitions yearly, just to have fun.
If there is a financial requirement, you'd drastically cut the farm accounts - or simply let them scramble for scraps in the shitty part of the gambling boards. No good sig campaign manager will look their way.
People that post quality content and don't gamble would naturally still get chosen.

Problem solved without much drama, without bans and whatnot. And it's a wholesome solution that benefits everyone. And there are probably 10 better ones, I came up with this one in 10 minutes.

__________________________

Sorry Rambo, I fully derailed your thread. You'll forgive me though.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

If you don’t mind, would you PM me a few usernames that, in your opinion, shouldn’t have been banned? So far I actually agreed to all of the bans I checked (I didn’t look at all 180+ bans). The only one I wasn’t too keen about was the guy that got unbanned.

I would like to understand the mind of who thinks X post is fine, and if I’m able to change his idea if I think the post is a shitpost.

Regarding the “people need to put food on their table”, remember theymos said this forum isn’t a charity. People should respect the forum if it is giving them a chance to earn 1x, 2x their local salary. Shitposting is spitting on the hand that feeds you.

Could you PM me a link to a list of all the sig ban victims (if you can classify them as victims).

I have a few appointments today so need to leave shortly, haven’t got time to search the forum right now. I may take a while but I will see if there are any accounts I disagree with.

Not that my opinion counts for much but would be good to take a look in its entirety.

[hugeblack]

I was more recently in discussion with nutildah about how to address the signal-to-noise issue, and he volunteered to help, in general terms. It was my idea to give him sigban permissions in particular.

Day after day, it's become clear that this is the best decision you've made this year, and @CLS63's situation is a prime example that @nutildah's opinions aren't biased or hasty. I fully support him.

Therefore, there's no need to add another member.
If anything needs to be done, it's to add a member who can shorten the ban period.

[JollyGood]

I have read your posts in the threads related to ILuckyGuyI and can understand your perspective as you have a different opinion of him than nutildah but has your opinion not changed now that the group of farmed accounts sharing the same IP address has been exposed?

You have engaged with ILuckyGuyI on the forum extensively and you have also met CLS63 in real life therefore it might be difficult for you to accept that that group of accounts really is connected.

Other than the accounts being operated by the same account farmer, what is the logical explanation that the CLS63, ILuckyGuyI, jakdanyel, emrecemsan, Velvet78 and Distraction accounts all have shared the exact identical IPv6 address at the same time on multiple occasions?

Regarding how outright bans or signature bans affect people from poor countries as it could be taking food off their table, I agree on the part that food might be off the table but surely that would apply to a member with one account that has been treated unfairly. Maybe it could apply to a member with one alt-account that was exposed for cheating.

Without considering anything that has happened in this thread and I am stating in a generic manner only, I cannot see any see reason at all why any goodwill should be shown towards account farmers that have cheated competitions and contests (or have broken campaign rules) regardless of the country they are located in. Maybe goodwill can be considered in every case but it might not be shown especially if the puppeteers are not showing any remorse and/or admitting their operate the accounts.

If you would like to see the criteria for bans modified, you might need to start a thread with a poll to seek consensus. If the majority of members agree with you, maybe theymos will consider it.

I have to admit, I don’t like it. If somebody is making 10 word shit posts repeatedly or posting in English speaking sections of the forum really poorly then maybe it’s something I would support but I think some people have been harshly treated.

Perhaps a decision to issue a sig ban should have to receive 3 out of 5 mod/admin approvals to enforce it. nutildah  is a very smart guy, that’s always been obvious. I think he should have a board of 5 admin/mods where he suggests a potential sig ban and requires 3 out of 5 to enforce it. That would clear up any bias or witch hunts.

I think the criteria should be really quite harsh for a sig ban though. This forum has a lot of history, it’s responsible for driving a lot of Bitcoin adoption. Some people from poor countries really need the $100 a week or whatever. You have to remember that when considering taking food off their table.

[Rikafip]

To be honest, my complain would be about how he manages to go after and ban users who have barely made any posts in the last 6 months when there are some fat, juicy targets right there, screaming in all caps to let people know they have no clue which teams play in which championship or what the actual game last week was.

Considering the speed at which nutildah is going through them, it's just a matter of time before he stumbles upon the "Union barikin" guy and the likes of him.

If it is not done this way the act of those giving the signature ban will always be subject to scrutiny and criticism.

People will complain no matter the system, that's just how it goes. And there will always be mistakes as no system/person is infallible. That of course doesn't mean that current system can't/won't be improved, but we need to give it some time before going for drastic changes like the one you suggest (which would inevitably cause drama as well).

Here's a thought - there should be a 'Paid pools' child board in the Gambling section. Naturally, sig campaign managers will focus on that - as will sponsors.

Managers can already focus on users that participate and write in those pools and hire mainly them, but they don't do that  because they somehow have to fill those signature campaign spots. There are simply more spots in signature campaigns than there are solid posters, and as long as that remains, signal to noise ratio will be low.

Could you PM me a link to a list of all the sig ban victims (if you can classify them as victims).

You can find all of them on Bitlist. So far 186 sig banned.

[cryptofrka]

Managers can already focus on users that participate and write in those pools and hire mainly them, but they don't do that  because they somehow have to fill those signature campaign spots. There are simply more spots in signature campaigns than there are solid posters, and as long as that remains, signal to noise ratio will be low.

Yes and no. Currently there is no separation in gambling.
This way you basically show them a path. People can still ignore it and some of them would still get paid - but the community around paid pools would grow.

It's a superior solution than counting whether there's an overlap of people who don't post on certain days, write some names incorrectly or whatnot. And it literally takes 1 day of mod work so it's incredibly easy to test.
It can also be tested in parallel with the current solution.

Really don't want to derail HH's thread with this further so I'm letting this rest

[vapourminer]

I am not sure most of the forum members would agree with you about this, even if they are not affected by signature ban.
There is a good reason why ALL moderators have this ability to sig ban members, and nobody was doing it in mass like he is.

from a moderators job its much easier to delete a random shitpost and general cleanup than it is to research payout addys, post timings, template use and other things that is taken into account. that takes a lot of time, and theyre busy enough.

no offense to the mods, they do great. but why fob a time sink like this off to them when a dedicated position may work much better and smoother.

[LoyceV]

Could you PM me a link to a list of all the sig ban victims (if you can classify them as victims).

I'll post it here:

• TryNinja's list
• BPIP's list
• my list