Additional ideas to tackle spam on BTT

[hugeblack]

2. Give the sigban power to the DT1 (DT2?) community

Its full name is "Marketplace DefaultTrust"; therefore, it should not be used to judge the quality of user posts, and it is a mistake to use it for spam mitigation. If there are complaints regarding "sig-ban," it might be best to add another member who can only reduce the duration of the ban.

[cryptofrka]

As a sort of the next best thing (since getting child board is realistically a long shot given how things work here), have you tried contacting cyrus and/or hilariousandco about maybe pinning el che's BTT Community Contests Directory & Discussion thread, with the list of all active pools? That could bring more attention to them.

I tagged them a few times trying to get his thread about WC promos pinned during the World Cup.
They did not do it, so I assume they either didn't see the notifications or that they didn't deem it necessary.

Let's be realistic - the gambling boards are poorly moderated. That is a part of the problem as well.

The 'this wasn't done before' argument is a poor one as well.
It would be a huge plus for Gambling to have paid pools separated and it's a few hours of work to move these threads.

I'm glad that you're interested in working toward finding some middle ground.

#1 - I think creating the child board is a good idea if you think it will help reduce spam overall. As we saw with the case of ILuckyGuyI, just because someone is paying to participate in a pool, it doesn't mean they're not primarily generating low quality posts. We can debate "low quality" from account to account, but this type of account that exists solely to game the system shouldn't be immune from moderation simply because they are posting in one particular board.

#2 - I'm largely in agreement here, although almost everything you mentioned could have been done long ago, and can still be done now, without the need for a special committee. People can report bad posts and the mods could sigban the most egregious offenders. But the thing is, it wasn't getting done, and it wouldn't be with only the pre-existing incentives in place.

I am open to feedback about sigbans, and I think the appeals process works well enough as it currently is that no restructuring of mod duties is required. If you disagree, feel free let me know why, and perhaps I can learn something to improve the process. IIRC in our last conversation, you said you couldn't disagree with any particular sigban (as of late), so I'm just wondering why you think an overhaul is needed.

#3 - I don't know what to tell you on this one. You guys are 100% responsible for your own actions. What you're talking about in the 'how to demand more' section is stuff you guys should be imposing on yourselves. If you want to consider signature campaigns a job, its unreasonable to expect your employees to also be your overseers.

#4 - This is also something that campaign managers could work together to implement, and it could be a positive change. I think some kind of union between the managers could go far in helping to set standards for campaign entry while also rewarding honest participants.

Ultimately, whatever changes are made should be with the goal of reducing spam and rewarding quality content. Currently, incentives heavily favor the mass production of low quality posts which affects all areas of the forum. This needs to change first and foremost.

The managers can help everybody out by not hiring low quality posters to begin with. Only they can stop the propagation of the perception that its possible to earn a living here by being a spammer. Its this perception that encourages people to spend their time leveling up a particularly meaningless skill, not applicable to human development or any other corner of the world economy.

A managers union could potentially act as the primary guard against spam if you guys would be willing to work together to implement a general plan. I support this change first and foremost.

#1 - Yes, agreed. The thing I'm mostly trying to point out is that posts that seem like quota fulfillment from the outside quite often exist for banter - a guy writing about Kosovo's late goal is writing about it because it made him lose a game in a competition we're playing. Even if that goal was mentioned 3 times before in that same thread, the contexts differ.
I'd like that we support banter/organic posting as much as possible - and we have to be aware that organic in sports discussion quite often seems (or truth be told - is) low quality.

There is no banter in the majority of the threads in gambling - it's often post after post of nothing. There is extreme banter in paid pools. Separating it would be helpful for any sort of analysis down the line.

#2 - for a system to work, it has to be fair. I think that, as long as people like that union barikin guy are still getting paid, a user like Strongkored should never be banned. I think there's a lot of people writing total generic random crap and I still see them on the gambling boards with signatures, and then I hear that mitchr4, Strongkored and Jinetics1111 are banned and think to myself, well, this isn't really fair. I know them, the are organic gambling participants, I didn't go through their posts but I can guarantee that they are better than a lot of others that are still getting paid. Maybe you just got to them first but still - doesn't sit well with me.

I don't mean to individually check banned users, nor do I interfere with the decisions anymore. I think that an automatic flagging process would help you in banning the low hanging fruit more easily, and then maybe you'd have more time for analysis of borderline cases. Also, if we already reduced spam automatically, maybe these guys would be spared because the banned quota would be high already.

While we're on the topic - I also think that for a first offence, especially considering that the sigbans came unannounced, the 1-year bans are extremely severe.
The idea of a sigban should be to help a user improve, a 1-year ban does not have that effect.

#3 and #4 - us working together is a bit naive. We're working against each other at the moment - and neither the clients nor regular users know statistically which managers are better and which are worse.
I think it would be an interesting experiment to have - more work given to better managers would hopefully lead to better campaigns and less spam.
We're doing mostly competitions so we don't fight for the same piece of the pie but you can see for yourself how divided the CM community is. It is a shame, but also partially the nature of business. I think we as a community should actively work toward pointing out the bad ones, demanding improvement and weeding them out if improvement isn't achieved.

_______________________________

@Upgrade00, @yahoo62278, @joker_josue

Nope, I'm not saying DT1 should have the power to ban. Let me explain a bit better:

user XY wrote 136 posts this month. 32 were reported as spam, 27 were deleted by mods.
If the vast majority of the 27 that were deleted came from regular users, a notification arrives to nutildah.
If more than 7 posts (5% from 136 written posts) that were deleted by the moderators comes as a result of a report from multiple DT1 users, than the user whose posts are deleted receives an automatic sigban.

It is just an idea, doesn't have to be DT1 only, numbers can be moved around. The core idea is that we start reporting posts again, and that this would be the collective effort in fighting against spam.

Any solutions used without fixing the merit system will not have long term effects.

Maybe, that should not stop us from looking at the problem from multiple angles. Maybe we shuld not have 1 fix, but 4 running in parallel.
The fact that something does not fix the situation in its entirety does not mean that it's automatically something to be discarded. Baby steps and we maybe get there.

Its full name is "Marketplace DefaultTrust"; therefore, it should not be used to judge the quality of user posts, and it is a mistake to use it for spam mitigation. If there are complaints regarding "sig-ban," it might be best to add another member who can only reduce the duration of the ban.

The idea was that some of the senior members can help in cleaning up the forum. Seniority works everywhere in the world and if we were more active in different parts of forum, it would become a better place for us all.
Not sure how the DT list was imagined, I know how it works now - and I feel that the ~100 people there would do a good job in helping mods to clean up the forum.

[IcaroAugusto]

Putting more responsibility on campaign managers makes sense, and the hash idea is an interesting way to enforce it without relying only on mods. The tricky part would be keeping it simple enough that smaller campaigns can still use it.

[ABCbits]

2. Give the sigban power to the DT1 (DT2?) community

--snip--
We can implement a simple formula that gives a bit of power and meaning to DT1 (and maybe DT2) users that says something like - if 5% of your posts in the last 30 days are successfully reported by multiple DT1 members, you automatically receive a 1-month sigban. Repeated offences increase the length of future bans.

After looking at current DT1 list on https://bpip.org/Report?r=dtstrength, i expect there would be big wave of sigban if this idea become reality. It could be bad or good thing, depending on your viewpoint.

3. Demand more from campaign managers
--snip--
A few ideas on 'how to demand more':

How about actively enforce existing Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)?.

[joker_josue]

Let's be realistic - the gambling boards are poorly moderated. That is a part of the problem as well.

The 'this wasn't done before' argument is a poor one as well.
It would be a huge plus for Gambling to have paid pools separated and it's a few hours of work to move these threads.

~~

#1 - Yes, agreed. The thing I'm mostly trying to point out is that posts that seem like quota fulfillment from the outside quite often exist for banter - a guy writing about Kosovo's late goal is writing about it because it made him lose a game in a competition we're playing. Even if that goal was mentioned 3 times before in that same thread, the contexts differ.
I'd like that we support banter/organic posting as much as possible - and we have to be aware that organic in sports discussion quite often seems (or truth be told - is) low quality.

There is no banter in the majority of the threads in gambling - it's often post after post of nothing. There is extreme banter in paid pools. Separating it would be helpful for any sort of analysis down the line.

#2 - for a system to work, it has to be fair. I think that, as long as people like that union barikin guy are still getting paid, a user like Strongkored should never be banned. I think there's a lot of people writing total generic random crap and I still see them on the gambling boards with signatures, and then I hear that mitchr4, Strongkored and Jinetics1111 are banned and think to myself, well, this isn't really fair. I know them, the are organic gambling participants, I didn't go through their posts but I can guarantee that they are better than a lot of others that are still getting paid. Maybe you just got to them first but still - doesn't sit well with me.

I don't mean to individually check banned users, nor do I interfere with the decisions anymore. I think that an automatic flagging process would help you in banning the low hanging fruit more easily, and then maybe you'd have more time for analysis of borderline cases. Also, if we already reduced spam automatically, maybe these guys would be spared because the banned quota would be high already.

While we're on the topic - I also think that for a first offence, especially considering that the sigbans came unannounced, the 1-year bans are extremely severe.
The idea of a sigban should be to help a user improve, a 1-year ban does not have that effect.

I think you touched on two relevant points: moderation, and strategic moves by some users.

Regarding moderation, I think that more could indeed be done.
I'm not saying that the moderators are doing a bad job. But the dynamics that this section has requires another type of approach.
I won't go into too much detail about this, because I don't like to criticize without presenting an idea of a solution.But the feeling I have is that we could try to do it differently.

Perhaps I can look into that later - if it really is of interest.


In the case of users who are apparently banned, when others are allegedly worse continue.
It's always tricky if these spammers manage to have less whistleblowing activity.

How to solve it? Reporting should be more effective.
Perhaps the focus to analyze sigbans can start by looking at the number of reports a user receives.
At least to serve as a filter for more detailed analysis.

Because I understand that some users can even be well behaved in all forums, but then in the game to make posts just to fill up.
Of course, this is never easy to assess, and there can be misinterpretations.

But, it is the continuous activities that prove what kind of user it is.If a user who made a simpler post because it happened, or if it is just to meet quotas.


You also touched on another point, haven't the reports of posts been decreasing either
To what extent do OPs of large topics get involved in reporting posts?
Or how many posts do campaign managers report?

In the end, are we all reporting enough posts?
I admit that I have to improve in that regard. I will try to improve in the near future.

[MarryWithBTC]

@Upgrade00, @yahoo62278, @joker_josue

Nope, I'm not saying DT1 should have the power to ban. Let me explain a bit better:

user XY wrote 136 posts this month. 32 were reported as spam, 27 were deleted by mods.
If the vast majority of the 27 that were deleted came from regular users, a notification arrives to nutildah.
If more than 7 posts (5% from 136 written posts) that were deleted by the moderators comes as a result of a report from multiple DT1 users, than the user whose posts are deleted receives an automatic sigban.

I like the suggestions, but this is where I differ slightly.

"user XY wrote 136 posts this month. 32 were reported as spam, 27 deleted by mods", this is already a good enough statistics to work with. There's no need checking "if more than 7 posts (5% from 136 written posts) that were deleted by the moderators comes as a result of a report from multiple DT1 users"

The mods decision that a report is good or bad is enough to issue a signature ban if the percentage of the deleted posts is high. Considering if the reports came from a DT1 member is kind of introducing complexity that is not needed. Besides, a non DT can still have a better report than a DT member, vice versa. Introducing DT preference can also induce bias in the mods side.

[philipma1957]

As a sort of the next best thing (since getting child board is realistically a long shot given how things work here), have you tried contacting cyrus and/or hilariousandco about maybe pinning el che's BTT Community Contests Directory & Discussion thread, with the list of all active pools? That could bring more attention to them.

I tagged them a few times trying to get his thread about WC promos pinned during the World Cup.
They did not do it, so I assume they either didn't see the notifications or that they didn't deem it necessary.

Let's be realistic - the gambling boards are poorly moderated. That is a part of the problem as well.

The 'this wasn't done before' argument is a poor one as well.
It would be a huge plus for Gambling to have paid pools separated and it's a few hours of work to move these threads.

I'm glad that you're interested in working toward finding some middle ground.

#1 - I think creating the child board is a good idea if you think it will help reduce spam overall. As we saw with the case of ILuckyGuyI, just because someone is paying to participate in a pool, it doesn't mean they're not primarily generating low quality posts. We can debate "low quality" from account to account, but this type of account that exists solely to game the system shouldn't be immune from moderation simply because they are posting in one particular board.

#2 - I'm largely in agreement here, although almost everything you mentioned could have been done long ago, and can still be done now, without the need for a special committee. People can report bad posts and the mods could sigban the most egregious offenders. But the thing is, it wasn't getting done, and it wouldn't be with only the pre-existing incentives in place.

I am open to feedback about sigbans, and I think the appeals process works well enough as it currently is that no restructuring of mod duties is required. If you disagree, feel free let me know why, and perhaps I can learn something to improve the process. IIRC in our last conversation, you said you couldn't disagree with any particular sigban (as of late), so I'm just wondering why you think an overhaul is needed.

#3 - I don't know what to tell you on this one. You guys are 100% responsible for your own actions. What you're talking about in the 'how to demand more' section is stuff you guys should be imposing on yourselves. If you want to consider signature campaigns a job, its unreasonable to expect your employees to also be your overseers.

#4 - This is also something that campaign managers could work together to implement, and it could be a positive change. I think some kind of union between the managers could go far in helping to set standards for campaign entry while also rewarding honest participants.

Ultimately, whatever changes are made should be with the goal of reducing spam and rewarding quality content. Currently, incentives heavily favor the mass production of low quality posts which affects all areas of the forum. This needs to change first and foremost.

The managers can help everybody out by not hiring low quality posters to begin with. Only they can stop the propagation of the perception that its possible to earn a living here by being a spammer. Its this perception that encourages people to spend their time leveling up a particularly meaningless skill, not applicable to human development or any other corner of the world economy.

A managers union could potentially act as the primary guard against spam if you guys would be willing to work together to implement a general plan. I support this change first and foremost.

#1 - Yes, agreed. The thing I'm mostly trying to point out is that posts that seem like quota fulfillment from the outside quite often exist for banter - a guy writing about Kosovo's late goal is writing about it because it made him lose a game in a competition we're playing. Even if that goal was mentioned 3 times before in that same thread, the contexts differ.
I'd like that we support banter/organic posting as much as possible - and we have to be aware that organic in sports discussion quite often seems (or truth be told - is) low quality.

There is no banter in the majority of the threads in gambling - it's often post after post of nothing. There is extreme banter in paid pools. Separating it would be helpful for any sort of analysis down the line.

#2 - for a system to work, it has to be fair. I think that, as long as people like that union barikin guy are still getting paid, a user like Strongkored should never be banned. I think there's a lot of people writing total generic random crap and I still see them on the gambling boards with signatures, and then I hear that mitchr4, Strongkored and Jinetics1111 are banned and think to myself, well, this isn't really fair. I know them, the are organic gambling participants, I didn't go through their posts but I can guarantee that they are better than a lot of others that are still getting paid. Maybe you just got to them first but still - doesn't sit well with me.

I don't mean to individually check banned users, nor do I interfere with the decisions anymore. I think that an automatic flagging process would help you in banning the low hanging fruit more easily, and then maybe you'd have more time for analysis of borderline cases. Also, if we already reduced spam automatically, maybe these guys would be spared because the banned quota would be high already.

While we're on the topic - I also think that for a first offence, especially considering that the sigbans came unannounced, the 1-year bans are extremely severe.
The idea of a sigban should be to help a user improve, a 1-year ban does not have that effect.

#3 and #4 - us working together is a bit naive. We're working against each other at the moment - and neither the clients nor regular users know statistically which managers are better and which are worse.
I think it would be an interesting experiment to have - more work given to better managers would hopefully lead to better campaigns and less spam.
We're doing mostly competitions so we don't fight for the same piece of the pie but you can see for yourself how divided the CM community is. It is a shame, but also partially the nature of business. I think we as a community should actively work toward pointing out the bad ones, demanding improvement and weeding them out if improvement isn't achieved.

_______________________________

@Upgrade00, @yahoo62278, @joker_josue

Nope, I'm not saying DT1 should have the power to ban. Let me explain a bit better:

user XY wrote 136 posts this month. 32 were reported as spam, 27 were deleted by mods.
If the vast majority of the 27 that were deleted came from regular users, a notification arrives to nutildah.
If more than 7 posts (5% from 136 written posts) that were deleted by the moderators comes as a result of a report from multiple DT1 users, than the user whose posts are deleted receives an automatic sigban.

It is just an idea, doesn't have to be DT1 only, numbers can be moved around. The core idea is that we start reporting posts again, and that this would be the collective effort in fighting against spam.

Any solutions used without fixing the merit system will not have long term effects.

Maybe, that should not stop us from looking at the problem from multiple angles. Maybe we shuld not have 1 fix, but 4 running in parallel.
The fact that something does not fix the situation in its entirety does not mean that it's automatically something to be discarded. Baby steps and we maybe get there.

Its full name is "Marketplace DefaultTrust"; therefore, it should not be used to judge the quality of user posts, and it is a mistake to use it for spam mitigation. If there are complaints regarding "sig-ban," it might be best to add another member who can only reduce the duration of the ban.

The idea was that some of the senior members can help in cleaning up the forum. Seniority works everywhere in the world and if we were more active in different parts of forum, it would become a better place for us all.
Not sure how the DT list was imagined, I know how it works now - and I feel that the ~100 people there would do a good job in helping mods to clean up the forum.

No no no the signature earnings for gambling posts help the forum exist. Encouraging the psot thier are what is nessasary

You should have zero issues with long redundancy posting on the gambling section .

It helps support all, the online players.

My idea fixes the issue. And you could either have a signature earn and be taxed or no signature and get a monthly chance for good money.

[Comeacross]

3. Demand more from campaign managers
--snip--
A few ideas on 'how to demand more':

How about actively enforce existing Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)?.

Op raises some great suggestions but I suggest we look back to see where things get wrong. I would vote to prioritise this over making new rules that eventually get dumped. Creating rules feel easy but compliance and enforcement becomes problem. We should focus on improving compliance instead of making more rules with less enforcement.

The signature ban itself has long been part of the forum rules but there were fewer enforcement (if there is any at all) before Nutilda was assigned the role that gave the sigban a popularity. Likewise the signature campaigns guidelines. If the current rules and guidelines should be strictly applied, we won't be here thinking of how to combat spams because they already cover how to handle them. What we need at the moment is strict enforcement of already existing rules.

[yahoo62278]

My idea fixes the issue. And you could either have a signature earn and be taxed or no signature and get a monthly chance for good money.

Your idea is interesting but you will have a hard time convincing 10s or hundreds of people to stop joining sig campaigns if there is only 1 winner each period. If there were multiple winners each period we could see a drop in sig participants, especially if the payment upon winning is decent sized.

[joker_josue]

My idea fixes the issue. And you could either have a signature earn and be taxed or no signature and get a monthly chance for good money.

I understand the idea, but I don't think it would solve the issue that much.

Basically I was just reducing the weekly pay.
Instead of getting $90, I got $85. In the end, we've seen campaigns paying a lot less than that.

I see this idea as an incentive for the whole community, whether or not they participate in the campaigns.It will not be a solution to reduce spam.

[Rikafip]

I tagged them a few times trying to get his thread about WC promos pinned during the World Cup.
They did not do it, so I assume they either didn't see the notifications or that they didn't deem it necessary.

Dunno, maybe sending them PM would get their attention. Worth the another try imo, since you believe it would improve gambling board.

The signature ban itself has long been part of the forum rules but there were fewer enforcement (if there is any at all) before Nutilda was assigned the role that gave the sigban a popularity.

I know of at least one case of a sigban before this recent initiative, but it happened years ago (like 5-6) and (iirc) it was due to plagiarism. There are probably more cases, but yeah,  it has seldom been used. Better late than never though. 

[nutildah]

No no no the signature earnings for gambling posts help the forum exist.

The forum does not need gambling posts to exist. It doesn't need anything. At the current price of Bitcoin it has enough money to operate for the next 100+ years.

I'd argue that the Scam Accusations board is actually more important than the Gambling board because its one of the few places on the internet where anyone can post unmoderated complaints about casinos. Aside from discussion of cutting edge Bitcoin development, this is what gives the forum modern day relevance. Its also one of the few places without forced conversation dominating almost every thread.

Nobody is visiting Bitcointalk to read opinions on gambling. They are coming here to find out if casinos are legit.

[dkbit98]

OP this are some nice suggestions, and I think we should focus more on other boards, not only on Gambling.
For example Bitcoin Discussion board has become ''The News'' board, and I think it should be improved.
I ado agree with someone who wrote that we should also focus more on campaign managers if we want to reduce spam.
Making them more responsible with some fines could make them better control of their campaign participants.

[Hatchy]

No no no the signature earnings for gambling posts help the forum exist.

The forum does not need gambling posts to exist. .

For this I will agree

It doesn't need anything

But this?
It should be your perspective, not something you present as everyone's opinion about what the forum needs or doesn't need. I can agree that we don't need many of the generic gambling posts, but when you say the forum doesn't need anything, it makes it sound like a fact.One reason the gambling section of the forum is still very active is because gambling is one niche where crypto is also widely incorporated. Bitcointalk is all about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency discussions, so it makes sense that gambling related discussions are also part of the forum.

But if you mean the forum doesn't need anything because it already has enough money, then I don't think you should look at it only from a financial perspective. Yes, the forum may be financially stable, but the discussions and activity are what keep the forum alive. Don't think that if those discussions stop coming, having enough money will automatically keep the forum active or drive in as many traffic as it does now...

[nutildah]

It should be your perspective, not something you present as everyone's opinion about what the forum needs or doesn't need. I can agree that we don't need many of the generic gambling posts, but when you say the forum doesn't need anything, it makes it sound like a fact.One reason the gambling section of the forum is still very active is because gambling is one niche where crypto is also widely incorporated. Bitcointalk is all about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency discussions, so it makes sense that gambling related discussions are also part of the forum.

But if you mean the forum doesn't need anything because it already has enough money, then I don't think you should look at it only from a financial perspective. Yes, the forum may be financially stable, but the discussions and activity are what keep the forum alive. Don't think that if those discussions stop coming, having enough money will automatically keep the forum active or drive in as many traffic as it does now...

That's true, it is simply my perspective. I'm just talking about base requirements necessary for the forum to remain online in its current state. You're talking about more existential needs. You're right: active discussion is good, and we all benefit from a healthy, vibrant forum. The problem is a significant percentage of posts are spam under the guise of discussion. The problem exists because the incentives of the current system favor quantity over quality.

There's a lot of fake conversation the forum could do without, and we would probably be more highly regarded by the rest of the internet if it left.

[suzanne5223]

I think the first users on the sigban lists should be the ones whose posts are often reported and deleted

What about the users whose posts or topics are deleted because there's already a topic created on the same discussion within 1-5 mins the user is busy writing his/her post, since you said ones whose posts are often reported and deleted? I believe the reason behind the post deletion/report should be looked into.

In number 3, I agree with some of your statements, but there are some parts that those who are in the marketing space, especially the campaign managers, won't agree with.

In number 4, all of it is something that I don't see working because marketing doesn't work in such ways, and every client has their own marketing budget, which the campaign has to provide in detail, including the amount spent, unless the campaign manager does so with their own funds, and with the level of competition we currently have now, only the manager who already has a steady client, or a client who understands how things work on this forum, will agree with you. I can't speak for everybody, but from my experience, I don't see it happening.

[xLays]

I really like the idea of adding child board for paid pools. Aside from what OP mentioned, I think this would also help organize League thread that already have a lot of discussions thread. We can keep the general discussions of the League in the gambling discussion board and move sponsored pool discussions to child board for paid pools.

This issue has been brought up several times here in meta, but so far there hasn't been good solution imo. I think this could be a practical way to address it.

Just in case you guys didn't know what I'm referring: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5589133.msg66969625#msg66969625

[igebotz]

1. Create a 'Paid pools' child board within Gambling

+1
I support this! This would further filter the real gamblers from the pretenders and improve the economy of the gambling board in general.

- Having the paid pool threads pinned could also serve as a temporary solution to push down the spam threads

[DireWolfM14]

2. Give the sigban power to the DT1 (DT2?) community

Instead of us depending just on nutildah's judgment, why not have our own? There's already a 'report to moderator' tool available to us all. I think the first users on the sigban lists should be the ones whose posts are often reported and deleted and I think we should have a process that does it automatically. We can implement a simple formula that gives a bit of power and meaning to DT1 (and maybe DT2) users that says something like - if 5% of your posts in the last 30 days are successfully reported by multiple DT1 members, you automatically receive a 1-month sigban. Repeated offences increase the length of future bans.

People generally stopped reporting bad/repeating posts because many remained unhandled. This would probably require either more mods or some sort of responsibility rebalancing - but if we would use the whole DT1 as a gauge of what kind of content we want to see, it would carry more weight than a voice of a single person does. I'm not saying nutildah should be fully stripped of his duties - there were some things that I disagreed with and still disagree with but I will also be the first one to admit that some progress was achieved after the sigbans started. We do have to realize though that the spam reduced because most of banned users were not replaced - if they were, the situation would probably be as bad as it was before the bans started.

When I red the bold part I almost fell out of my seat.  There are plenty of DT members who shouldn't even have the power they already have.  I'm sure some will say that includes me.

As I read the rest of this section, I see that you mean nothing should change.  Because that's already how things operate.  The only difference now is that we have someone (nutildah) who is actually exercising the tool that moderators have been ignoring for years.

Points 3 and 4 are good ones, but I don't see any of that happening.  There's no central authority moderating signature campaigns, or managers.  And as you pointed out, most managers want to maximize their earnings.

campaign managers could work together

 
I wouldn't hold my breath.