Additional ideas to tackle spam on BTT

[Shishir99]

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.

What kind of logic is this?
In such a case, they want to make their campaign manager happy only to get paid. These types of people do not want to contribute to the forum community and care only about the money. I know everyone cares about the money, including myself. But that does not mean I will have to make my campaign manager happy by writing all my posts on a certain board. Also, I somewhat do not agree with the fact that the campaign manager will be happy if I write most posts there.

Posting in that specific board alone will force me to generate low-quality posts, which won't help me earn any merits. If my 120-day earned merits drop, you have to understand that my post quality dropped a lot.

[cryptofrka]

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.

This is probably the only thing you can't do as a sig campaign manager.
People will start avoiding you like the plague - and it is logical from whichever angle you look at it.

This would be possible if we had a lack of spots in campaigns, due to the bans now we have open spots everywhere.

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]

Megathreads are great in theory. I say keep the megathreads, just make them meaningful.
It is much better to have 1 thread for 5 years of the same contest than 5 different threads.

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)...?

Naturally, you select gamblers for the gambling brands. I'd select different users for a swap service.

I think the effects of letting people express themselves without constraints are positive. As far as I can tell, people don't leave our campaigns often and we select the users that organically post in the threads we consider important - therefore we don't feel that implementing any rules is necessary.

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".

This here is the main one. There should never be any delay in payment, only acceptable delays are if the campaign manager is sick or something similar.
We should have funds escrowed and either stop the campaigns or pay out from our own pockets when they are not. It is our job to deal with the client, as soon as the service from a member is performed the payment should arrive.

[Rikafip]

This is probably the only thing you can't do as a sig campaign manager.

I've seen managers kicking members from campaigns for underperforming, so I don't see why being a little bit more strict when counting posts should be a problem.
Surely some middle ground could have been found between accepting almost any drivel (which is the current situation) and being too strict by rejecting posts left and right. But since managers were/are not willing to do that, we have nutildah's sig ban thing going on.

People will start avoiding you like the plague - and it is logical from whichever angle you look at it.

Assuming that you are reasonable, only the worst kind of shitposters. But do you even want them applying in the first place?

[cryptofrka]

I've seen managers kicking members from campaigns for underperforming, so I don't see why being a little bit more strict when counting posts should be a problem.
Surely some middle ground could have been found between accepting almost any drivel (which is the current situation) and being too strict by rejecting posts left and right. But since managers were/are not willing to do that, we have nutildah's sig ban thing going on.

It's different. By removing 1-2 members, you're sending a message. By rejecting posts other would accept, you're weakening your hand in future negotiations.

Although I tend to agree that 'drivel' is being accepted, we need to understand that this is the world we're living in.
Open any social app, there will be shitposts everywhere. A whole lot of these will be paid for. Companies want to be seen, they often don't care how - as long as they are.

I do agree that some lines should not be crossed - but then again, I don't really think that the situation in which people debank by writing 'drivel' on a forum is so problematic.

Assuming that you are reasonable, only the worst kind of shitposters. But do you even want them applying in the first place?

We have it easy because we never needed to hire 200+ people. We focus mostly on competitions and occasionally run a sig campaign that is always highly paid so our pool of potential users is bigger.
If we had to select 200 members, I'm sure a lot would be considered as 'shitposters'.

What do you expect a sig campaign manager to do? Turn down a client saying that no good posters are available? That client will go to another manager 2h later and have a campaign with 'shitposters' while the first one who wanted to do something good for the forum will be left holding his dick in his hands.

_______________________________

Please guys - when we discuss these things, try to look at them from another angle as well. Sometimes by doing the right thing we'd only be hurting ourselves and our businesses.

[LoyceV]

If we had to select 200 members, I'm sure a lot would be considered as 'shitposters'.

What do you expect a sig campaign manager to do? Turn down a client saying that no good posters are available? That client will go to another manager 2h later and have a campaign with 'shitposters' while the first one who wanted to do something good for the forum will be left holding his dick in his hands.

That's one of the reasons I've rejected almost every offer to run a signature campaign (the other reason is I didn't trust them). The fact that someone else is going to do it if you don't do it, shouldn't be a reason to do it if it's not right.
If the forum would enforce the Signature Campaign Guidelines, no campaign manager would get away with paying shitposters, and we wouldn't need Sigbans either.

[cryptofrka]

That's one of the reasons I've rejected almost every offer to run a signature campaign (the other reason is I didn't trust them). The fact that someone else is going to do it if you don't do it, shouldn't be a reason to do it if it's not right.
If the forum would enforce the Signature Campaign Guidelines, no campaign manager would get away with paying shitposters, and we wouldn't need Sigbans either.

Define 'right'. It's not as if we're doing something that's morally irresponsible.
It will be done by somebody else anyway. If I feel I can do it better, I think I'm actually doing something good by running it myself.

If the forum would enforce the Guidelines, some sort of order could be created.
As long as the forum does not, well, what do you expect people to do? They will run them in a way that makes them the most money.

[Free Market Capitalist]

This would be possible if we had a lack of spots in campaigns, due to the bans now we have open spots everywhere.

Is that so? So I wouldn't worry too much about additional measures. The signature bans have had an impact. Let's see if, by trying so hard to impose restrictions on the gambling sections, we end up with a forum that's no longer attractive to advertisers. I know that some of the measures you propose, such as paid pools, would probably make it interesting but coming back to what you said:

... I agree there are some good posters in gambling outside the paid pool threads. There is maybe 30 of them though, surely not 500 - and their posts get lost in the bullshit.

Reducing traffic outside the paid pool threads from 500 participants to 30 would result in a drastic drop in forum traffic. From an advertiser’s perspective, I also don’t think a forum where the gambling section—aside from a few threads—has little traffic would be appealing. Discussions about gambling are what they are; we generally can't expect them to be of a high standard. Sure, we don't want it filled with people posting nonsense—that much is clear—but I'm concerned we might end up overdoing it. Gambling played an important role both in the history of Bitcoin and on this forum, not because it sparked discussions at the highest intellectual level, but because of the economic aspect.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

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.

I am actually amused about the "2. No minimum post for getting paid." since it's LM that has exactly these rules.

Basically all of them have the following rule:

3. A minimum of 20 weekly posts will make you eligible for the payment.

So bringing this up straight up hilarious imo. If you don't agree with this and think it enables spam then cut of from your campaign rules, plain and simple.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I am actually amused about the "2. No minimum post for getting paid." since it's LM that has exactly these rules.

Basically all of them have the following rule:

3. A minimum of 20 weekly posts will make you eligible for the payment.

So bringing this up straight up hilarious imo. If you don't agree with this and think it enables spam then cut of from your campaign rules, plain and simple.

He doesn't usually enforce that rule. And I say "usually" because I haven't checked all but you can check his spreadsheets and you will see plenty of people getting paid without having achieved the minimum required amount of posts. So I would bet it's more like he never enforces the rule.

Maybe time to delete that rule in your threads LM?

[AHOYBRAUSE]

I am actually amused about the "2. No minimum post for getting paid." since it's LM that has exactly these rules.

Basically all of them have the following rule:

3. A minimum of 20 weekly posts will make you eligible for the payment.

So bringing this up straight up hilarious imo. If you don't agree with this and think it enables spam then cut of from your campaign rules, plain and simple.

He doesn't usually enforce that rule. And I say "usually" because I haven't checked all but you can check his spreadsheets and you will see plenty of people getting paid without having achieved the minimum required amount of posts. So I would bet it's more like he never enforces the rule.

Maybe time to delete that rule in your threads LM?

Well the problem is not if it gets enforced or not, it's that it's actually there which indirectly "pressures" the participants to make those 20 posts since they don't know if the rule gets enforced or not. Especially when you are new to him and/or the campaign how would you know if you get paid or not if you make less posts if the rules state you don't. That's what I meant but I also thought it's pretty hypocritical to talk about having no min post requirement while having the rule in all the campaigns.

So I am with you on that one, the rule should just be scrapped to avoid confusion as well as possible spam.