Additional ideas to tackle spam on BTT

[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.

With this concept, if @Yahoo's suggested is added, in a few years signature campaigns will slowly become a thing of the past.

The catch is the taxation: why should a decent poster be communally taxed to negotiate with a spammer who will never give up anyway? It's simple. They can just accept, diversify, create more alts to fill up campaigns (because they just can't watch the spot remain vacant) while the ones you know stay as beneficiaries of the taxation. You have successfully created more problems, how? What drives these spammers is how to make more money.

Ps; This doesn't apply to low-ranked spammers even though they have also created a mess in an attempt to seek for merits, especially on boards and topics where signatures are not displayed.

There is not perfection, no perfect fairness, and the fiction book of Orwell is always right. You can post shit without signature ban or account ban if you have good reputation or a staff. How did you get a good reputation and how did you get a staff badge is another thing but after you had such, you will have a good layer of protection.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
If this came from Cactus himself, and no one else quoted him to affirm, I guess the problem is rooted deeper than we all think.

This is not my concept, this was an idea from philipma1957. The idea is interesting but you might be right and cheaters will find a way to cheat. Nothing wrong with users giving ideas but finding 1 that will work will be another thing.

[Sandra_hakeem]

There is not perfection, no perfect fairness, and the fiction book of Orwell is always right. You can post shit without signature ban or account ban if you have good reputation or a staff. How did you get a good reputation and how did you get a staff badge is another thing but after you had such, you will have a good layer of protection.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
If this came from Cactus himself, and no one else quoted him to affirm, I guess the problem is rooted deeper than we all think.

Is it right or wrong?
Tell me honestly please.

Of course you're right. I had to drop one of the most famous paradoxical quotes from that satire. Nothing agrees more to it than the Orwellian quote, perhaps Hhampuz has good knowledge on books like that.

Orwell was posted by Hhampuz too, if you know. I knew about Orwell book before that post of Hhampuz but when the manager posted it, it reminds me about this forum, posts, spams, signature bans.

Possibly Hhampuz thought about something else, not similar like I think about, just get something in common from the Orwell's book.

Yeah, I don't know about that. Did you forget to quote him so I could read?

If assumed spam is too much in Gambling discussion board, I think more about a forum universal rule on signature campaigns like all campaigns are allowed to count only 5 posts in maximum for each week's paid posts. I doubt theymos will do that but create a paid pool is not something I think is good and agree with.

Unfortunately, the gambling discussion board is just one of the few spam-infested boards.

[knowngunman]

The idea is interesting but you might be right and cheaters will find a way to cheat. Nothing wrong with users giving ideas but finding 1 that will work will be another thing.

I really don't want to kick against other's ideas simply because I have none to offer for now. The Philipma idea is of course a creative idea but I don't think it solve the problem, but rather add another problem just like Sandra hakeem said.

Spam is posting low quality posts and taxing signature participants doesn't stop that. They'll only lose a meagre percentage from their earnings while spam continues. On the other hand, if every account becomes eligible for the monthly draw, does that mean everyone can just register on the forum and automatically stand a chance to win? Regardless of rank? If that is the case, then we should expect more alts in the coming days once the idea is enforced. We are indirectly incentivising account farming.

Basically, the idea made spam a revenue source to pay account farmers. Now, I understand why he said spam becomes good 

The feasible way to get rid of spam is for moderators and managers to become more stricter.

[MarryWithBTC]

Then paid pool threads will accept spam posts inside.

Spam posts in other threads are (likely default) considered as spam.
Spam posts in paid pool threads by default will be considered as not spam, I don't say high quality, it is non sense. Just difference between spam and not spam is enough.

No.

Fewer spam posts in high-quality threads are easier to detect and report; we see posts like that from non-participants on rare occasions, and they are often removed. Paid pool threads are actively monitored; I wouldn't say they're spam-free but they're sure the best threads on the gambling board.

I agree with igebotz;

A spammer will spam unapologetically when they are surrounded by fellow spammers. In fact, in a spam thread, spammers wouldn't know they are spamming because they'll hardly see a standout post that will convince them that they are spamming.

But a paid pool is highly consisted of experienced gamblers and quality posters, in fact an average poster who joins the pool will be forced to improve, seeing how organic posts are in the thread.

Just like igebotz, I wouldn't also say paid pools are spam-free, because spam could somehow be relative. Someone who do no thoroughly understand what is discussed would mistake many posts to be spam. But paid pools are the most decent threads in the gambling board.

[libert19]

...

I agree with igebotz;

A spammer will spam unapologetically when they are surrounded by fellow spammers.

Not just spammers but even established/reputed members of the forum. It's like they lose their forum etiquette when in gambling discussion board; every time I see such happening, I am like, 'I don't expect this from you' — sometimes, I respond to 'em and it's almost always ignored except this one instance.

In fact, in a spam thread, spammers wouldn't know they are spamming because they'll hardly see a standout post that will convince them that they are spamming.

Brave of you to assume that users there actually read posts.

Just like igebotz, I wouldn't also say paid pools are spam-free, because spam could somehow be relative. Someone who do no thoroughly understand what is discussed would mistake many posts to be spam. But paid pools are the most decent threads in the gambling board.

I say, all paid pools should be self-mod, I am sure op would know what's spam and what's not; outsiders view is irrelevant.

[joker_josue]

Just like igebotz, I wouldn't also say paid pools are spam-free, because spam could somehow be relative. Someone who do no thoroughly understand what is discussed would mistake many posts to be spam. But paid pools are the most decent threads in the gambling board.

I say, all paid pools should be self-mod, I am sure op would know what's spam and what's not; outsiders view is irrelevant.

The problem with self-moderation is that it's not always well-regarded by most people.
Yes, it will help keep spammers away, but it may also drive away those who think that self-moderation is a way of stifling opinion or criticism.

This doesn't mean that everyone who uses self-moderation has this objective; what I'm saying is that it's often perceived that way.


But I think if we look closely at a very specific sector, which is paid pools, that sector is perhaps the one that, by nature, suffers the least from spam. Does it get lost among all the other topics? I don't think so, because if a pool is active, it will always be on the list of the first topics.

It's true that there are a good number of pool topics, but I also don't think they deserve a child board. Unless the idea is to stop having mega-topics pools.

[xLays]

I say, all paid pools should be self-mod, I am sure op would know what's spam and what's not; outsiders view is irrelevant.

I agree that the OP should at least be able to delete replies when it’s obvious that the user isn’t even participating in the paid pool, this can only be done if the thread is selfmod. There’s really no reason to wait for mod to remove a reply that clearly doesn’t belong in the pool.

I’ve reported a few replies in paid pools I’ve joined before, and so far whenever I mentioned in the report that the user wasn’t part of the paid pool, the mods deleted them pretty quickly regardless what is the post is.

Just like this:

[cryptofrka]

It's true that there are a good number of pool topics, but I also don't think they deserve a child board. Unless the idea is to stop having mega-topics pools.

What's the harm in it?
We already have 'Investor based games' that literally nobody uses there, and many other examples of child boards that are no longer relevant.

If something makes sense, it's easy to do and it helps the community, what is the reason that we still decide not to do it? Another child board would hurt the forum?

[Little Mouse]

The easier solution would be enforcing the following-
1. Sig campaign can't enforce min number of post in specific board/section.
2. No minimum post for getting paid.

This wouldn’t remove the spam completely but would reduce it in significant numbers IMO.

It can be enforced by campaign manager but as long as no rules are there, it wont be.

[Shishir99]

The easier solution would be enforcing the following-
1. Sig campaign can't enforce min number of post in specific board/section.
2. No minimum post for getting paid.

This wouldn’t remove the spam completely but would reduce it in significant numbers IMO.

It can be enforced by campaign manager but as long as no rules are there, it wont be.

You mean the forum rules should be enforcing the campaign managers to follow these two rules?
I am not sure if the forum staff would do it. But I agree with these two points. Even though I agree that most spam is actually generated in the Gambling and altcoins boards, requiring the campaign participants to post in the gambling section somehow fuels this, I don't think the spam will be dropped significantly.

Most campaigns actually require 5 or maybe 10 at most gambling board posts, but I have seen forum members who write 90% of their posts in the Gambling boards, even though their campaign does not require it. Some people just find it easy to complete their daily quota in the gambling board. They could write anything and walk away.

[cryptofrka]

The easier solution would be enforcing the following-
1. Sig campaign can't enforce min number of post in specific board/section.
2. No minimum post for getting paid.

This wouldn’t remove the spam completely but would reduce it in significant numbers IMO.

It can be enforced by campaign manager but as long as no rules are there, it wont be.

There is no post minimum nor any gambling quotas in any of the campaigns Trofo and myself ran.
It's the easiest change - so if you like it, just start implementing it.

It's us that decide these things - not something the forum higher-ups need to intervene in.

[Rikafip]

The easier solution would be enforcing the following-

The easiest solution (and the least intrusive) would be for managers to be stricter when it comes to evaluating whether posts should be paid or not. Call me naive, but I really believe that people (or at least certain percentage) would actually try to improve their posts if, week after week, they found out that only half of their posts were being paid. Unfortunately, that wasn't/isn't the case, so we got the sig ban initiative. Instead of being busy evaluating posts more strictly, managers are now busy finding replacements for sig banned members.

It can be enforced by campaign manager but as long as no rules are there, it wont be.

Why not? And how come some managers can do it, and some can't (or to be more precise, wont)?

Some people just find it easy to complete their daily quota in the gambling board. They could write anything and walk away.

It's by far the easiest place to dump your sig quota, and many members who are mostly active there got lulled into thinking they found a safe spot, because they kept getting paid for drivel week after week, year after year.

[MarryWithBTC]

It's true that there are a good number of pool topics, but I also don't think they deserve a child board. Unless the idea is to stop having mega-topics pools.

I understand your point, and hence I'll say having seasonal threads in a paid pools child board is also a good idea. I think you are looking at activity in the board. If paid pools continue to have mega threads, there might be just a few mega threads in the board. So, seasonal pool threads wouldn't also be a bad idea[After this season, we start another thread for next season's pool]

The easier solution would be enforcing the following-
1. Sig campaign can't enforce min number of post in specific board/section.

This actually comes with the task of campaign managers to be able to identify those natural gambling posters. If such min requirements doesn't exist, someone wearing gambling signature might end up not posting in the gambling board at all, which might not be good for the project they promote.

2. No minimum post for getting paid.

Yes! and Yes!, I support this idea.

I have seen a user who wrote absolute nonsense on the gambling discussion board. I don't consider that poster as a shit poster, so I followed him to his inbox. I was shocked when the person told me that they wrote the post with sleepy eyes in order to complete their post quota for the week, as that was the last day.

...Most campaigns actually require 5 or maybe 10 at most gambling board posts, but I have seen forum members who write 90% of their posts in the Gambling boards, even though their campaign does not require it. Some people just find it easy to complete their daily quota in the gambling board. They could write anything and walk away.

See their logic;

If my campaign manager will be happy having me make 10 posts in the gambling board, it means he will be happier having me make 20 posts there.

[DYING_S0UL]

The easier solution would be enforcing the following-
1. Sig campaign can't enforce min number of post in specific board/section.
2. No minimum post for getting paid.

This wouldn’t remove the spam completely but would reduce it in significant numbers IMO.

It can be enforced by campaign manager but as long as no rules are there, it wont be.

There is no post minimum nor any gambling quotas in any of the campaigns Trofo and myself ran.
It's the easiest change - so if you like it, just start implementing it.

It's us that decide these things - not something the forum higher-ups need to intervene in.

Since you guys are the ones deciding on these rules and restrictions, the mins and maxs, now I wonder about the rules regarding posts in certain boards - do these companies ever wants/demands, you do that? Simply put, does the brands asks the CM's that we want this amount of posts in this particular board? Or is it something the CM's came up with on their own? (the do and dont's)...

I understand the part, if it's related to gambling, brands would want promotions in the gambling sections. This part, I acknowledge.

Btw, cryptofrka, as you said, you guys impose no such rules in your campaigns! So my question is, did it have any negative/positive effects (overall)...?

[Little Mouse]

The easier solution would be enforcing the following-
1. Sig campaign can't enforce min number of post in specific board/section.
2. No minimum post for getting paid.

This wouldn’t remove the spam completely but would reduce it in significant numbers IMO.

It can be enforced by campaign manager but as long as no rules are there, it wont be.

There is no post minimum nor any gambling quotas in any of the campaigns Trofo and myself ran.
It's the easiest change - so if you like it, just start implementing it.

It's us that decide these things - not something the forum higher-ups need to intervene in.

Yeah true but some of us can agree with these while some other won't. This will give advantage to some others.
I myself have these rules posted in the campaign threads but to be honest, if someone missed the minimum required post or min required in gambling section, I have never hold back anyone's fund for this. I have always paid them in full (in rare case, a little pay cut).

The easier solution would be enforcing the following-

The easiest solution (and the least intrusive) would be for managers to be stricter when it comes to evaluating whether posts should be paid or not. Call me naive, but I really believe that people (or at least certain percentage) would actually try to improve their posts if, week after week, they found out that only half of their posts were being paid. Unfortunately, that wasn't/isn't the case, so we got the sig ban initiative. Instead of being busy evaluating posts more strictly, managers are now busy finding replacements for sig banned members.

It can be enforced by campaign manager but as long as no rules are there, it wont be.

Why not? And how come some managers can do it, and some can't (or to be more precise, wont)?

I didn't want to bring the dramatic answer but what would happen when it was someone else in the recent BitboIIo's (intentional mistake) case? We have seen a few months delay in sig payment but I was required by him to reach him in DM for explaining why sig payment was delayed a few days(while I explained in campaign thread why the delay was). He asked me why didn't I reach him in DM with explanation to the delay + since a few days was delayed, likely the project was scam (not to mention that the project is doing okay and managed by someone else). I did never share this publicly until now. That's the thing of "how some can vs how some can't".

[notocactus]

A spammer will spam unapologetically when they are surrounded by fellow spammers. In fact, in a spam thread, spammers wouldn't know they are spamming because they'll hardly see a standout post that will convince them that they are spamming.

Spammers spam everywhere, in spam boards to used-to-be quality boards like Bitcoin Technical discussion board. They can create threads to spam or join available threads to spam.

But a paid pool is highly consisted of experienced gamblers and quality posters, in fact an average poster who joins the pool will be forced to improve, seeing how organic posts are in the thread.

Experienced gamblers can make spam posts and experienced members in the forum can make spam posts too. I look at the posts and assess quality, not a board, a thread (paid pool or not) or a member rank or position like moderator.

Convince me with posts and post quality.

The easier solution would be enforcing the following-
1. Sig campaign can't enforce min number of post in specific board/section.
2. No minimum post for getting paid.

This wouldn’t remove the spam completely but would reduce it in significant numbers IMO.

It can be enforced by campaign manager but as long as no rules are there, it wont be.

I agree, and I think with managers, it's easy to do.

They can have discussions and offers to casinos but I believe that casinos will still accept to run signature campaigns even there is no or limited posts in gambling boards. They're quite profitable business and I see it does not mean effects are only in gambling boards. Posts in other boards can give brand exposure and attract new users too.

Btw, cryptofrka, as you said, you guys impose no such rules in your campaigns! So my question is, did it have any negative/positive effects (overall)...?

If selected participants are wide spreading in different boards, it's good enough because good posters in gambling board will make posts there while other posts who are good at other boards can make good posts there and expose the casino brand there.

[igebotz]

No.

Fewer spam posts in high-quality threads are easier to detect and report; we see posts like that from non-participants on rare occasions, and they are often removed. Paid pool threads are actively monitored; I wouldn't say they're spam-free but they're sure the best threads on the gambling board.

It's like pay the fee and almost free to spam and I keep my stance on it.

I didn't understand your post, I've read it several times and didn't know what to reply to it - do you mind explaining it more?

While doing so, would you mind telling me why the paid pool subboard should not be created and what harm it would do to the forum?

[Rikafip]

Yeah true but some of us can agree with these while some other won't. This will give advantage to some others.

Wouldn't those with more relaxed rules have an advantage as they would attract better posters?

I myself have these rules posted in the campaign threads but to be honest, if someone missed the minimum required post or min required in gambling section, I have never hold back anyone's fund for this. I have always paid them in full (in rare case, a little pay cut).

Then might as well remove it and see what happens.

I didn't want to bring the dramatic answer but what would happen when it was someone else in the recent BitboIIo's (intentional mistake) case? We have seen a few months delay in sig payment but I was required by him to reach him in DM for explaining why sig payment was delayed a few days(while I explained in campaign thread why the delay was). He asked me why didn't I reach him in DM with explanation to the delay + since a few days was delayed, likely the project was scam (not to mention that the project is doing okay and managed by someone else). I did never share this publicly until now. That's the thing of "how some can vs how some can't".

I honestly don't understand what that has to do with some managers setting posts requirements and some not.

[joker_josue]

It's true that there are a good number of pool topics, but I also don't think they deserve a child board. Unless the idea is to stop having mega-topics pools.

What's the harm in it?
We already have 'Investor based games' that literally nobody uses there, and many other examples of child boards that are no longer relevant.

If something makes sense, it's easy to do and it helps the community, what is the reason that we still decide not to do it? Another child board would hurt the forum?

I don't think it hurts the forum.
Just, looking at the number of topics, maybe it's not necessary.

Now, I agree that it could be a better way to organize the forum.
Being all in the same place can confuse and make it difficult to understand what has or does not have quality.

[Smartvirus]

It's true that there are a good number of pool topics, but I also don't think they deserve a child board. Unless the idea is to stop having mega-topics pools.

What's the harm in it?
We already have 'Investor based games' that literally nobody uses there, and many other examples of child boards that are no longer relevant.

The purpose for Child’s board is for coordination and I think creating one for paid pools since we have a lot of them these days and they form a micro economy of the forum is of absolute necessity.

It doesn’t also keep it away from moderation, of course it would be moderated but then, it would be easier to find the meaning in phrases as short as “lucky bastard” which ordinarily can be a spam every other place but, based on the proceedings of a discussion and it still wouldn’t constitute a paid post even. Which would clear the intentions for such posts.

If we find games and rounds and investor based games to be any relevant, a child’s board for paid pools should too.