Signature Campaign Must Stop Paying Spammer, Farmer, And Other Abuser

[Free Market Capitalist]

If theymos were to ban these campaigns, we’d see just how little the people who post now would have to say.

A weird proposition because we both know that's not going to happen.

It's not a proposition; it's a “what if” scenario—a hypothetical situation that we all know how it would end.

Campaign managers are gonna keep doing what they're doing, and I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing.

So, what is this? A battle between you and the managers? Call me crazy if you want, but I thought it would be better to work together for the forum.

[coupable]

You can’t just prompt AI to give you a list of farm accounts and expect it to be accurate. Some of these accounts are questionable hence the neutral tag but your thread doesn’t add anything new to the case. If you really want to expose farmers, then do it the traditional way - connect the accounts with bitcoin addresses, post style and pattern.

He can't do this because he is using an alt account. Either he is himself a spammer with low-quality posts, so he did not get the chance to participate in any signature campaigns. Or he's trying to dox reputed forum managers. His aim is not to clean the forum of spammers. Still not sure why he chose to post with an alt. I don't see anything wrong with it, and no one's going to tag his profile.

They're so many people who is afraid to air out their opinion to the public using their main account...maybe his account is connected to someone else, that's why he decided to use an alt..

But from another perspective, If you look at what op pointed out, some of the accounts are doing what op accused them of, but the thing is that,the truth is always hard to believe...if we look down on op because is a newbie or alt, The most important thing is that, we shouldn't look down on the information is trying pass to the community...

He could send a private message to the campaign managers informing them about users with history of soam in their campaigns. Or just start a topic discussing the issue in the appropriate board without accusing anybody. Op started this topic in the Reputation board and mention everybodies, managers and participants as well. This is an indirect public accusation and managers could simple answer that they are free to set the the type of criteria they think the best as long as they don't break forum rules.

[Xiestar]

Campaign managers are gonna keep doing what they're doing, and I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing.

So, what is this? A battle between you and the managers? Call me crazy if you want, but I thought it would be better to work together for the forum.

It’s hard to find a middle ground between a campaign manager that has their own preferences that are different from Nutildah.

This thread is obviously a garbage thread yet it receives a lot of replies. 

[Majestic-milf]

This is BS. If the OP had used his main account, I might have taken this thread more seriously. Hiding behind an alt account while accusing other members of what in OP posting is questionable in itself. For all we know, the OP could be one of the very user engaging in the behavior he's criticizing. If you're going to call out others, at least have the confidence to do it using your main account. Have some balls.

I agree that it's a cowardly move by the OP and even though he excused himself for using an alt, it still doesn't justify the fact that hes just a pot calling a kettle black. The information might be helpful but op prefers to do that hiding behind an alt; I feel that if you've got nothing to hide, do it from the main account.

[mindrust]

Let's stop pretending we're here for some noble cause. We're all here for one reason: to make money from BITCOINTALK. That's the whole point.

The only difference between us is our role and how we contribute. Some of us are campaign participants, while others happen to be campaign managers, moderators, or ADMIN. Those titles don't change the fundamental reason we're here.

Being campaign manager, moderator, or admin doesn't suddenly make you any less motivated by money than the user participating in signature campaigns. You're still here to earn, just like everyone else.

So let's cut the hypocrisy. Don't act like your position makes you morally superior to everyone else. At the end of the day, we're all here to make money. The only difference is how we do it, not why we're here.

I have been saying this -indirectly- too but some people insist on not agreeing with it for some reason. The problem isn't that we are all here to make money, the real problem is that we are out of topics to talk about. The forum needs to expand itself towards the new hot topic, whatever that is, and it happens to be AI lately. The story of crypto has pretty much came to an end. People are not even interested in talking about crypto prices anymore. There are thousands of crypto out there and none of them are interesting but two; BTC and XMR. They work just fine, Bitcoin won. Monero won. One of them is the best general purpose coin, the other one is the king of privacy. There isn't a higher complement to crypto than this. They won, they accomplished their purpose. That also means the forum lost its reason to exist. Now what?

[OgNasty]

Let's stop pretending we're here for some noble cause. We're all here for one reason: to make money from BITCOINTALK. That's the whole point.

You really should speak for yourself here.  When I came to this forum there were no signature campaigns.  There were no trolls.  It was all people who were here to help Bitcoin grow adoption and use cases.  It was an absolute paradise on the internet.  Everyone was supportive of each other and willing to share for the common good...  This started to change in 2014 and by 2018 the community was an absolute disaster.  So I guess for people who signed up after 2017 (and some after 2013), your words are probably mostly true.  Not for the 2011 crowd though.  Everyone made fun of us and said we'd go bankrupt supporting Bitcoin.  We did it anyway, because it wasn't about the money, it was about freeing mankind from financial oppression.  Be thankful the early folks had this opinion, or Bitcoin would have never gone above $35 a coin and would have died in 2012.

[Majestic-milf]

So are you saying the major reason people are fighting spam in this forum is to protect the companies doing advert in this forum, wow.

Why do people struggle to get merits? To add to their collection box or something? Dude, this isn't rocket science. You strive to make posts( even if some are spam) so that you'd get merits and in turn, rise in ranks so you can enter a campaign. Tell me something. Why do people struggle to rise in ranks if it's not to join a campaign?
 Have you not noticed that those not in a campaign find it hard to make posts and if they do, some of them take their time to go through what they write, whereas some of those who are in a campaign just rush through it. I'm not making this sound like I'm a very perfect person because trust me, I've had my shit deleted for low quality but the thing is; those posters in a campaign tend to be paid more attention than those without.
 I know that to solve a problem, you've got to start from the root but you too have to understand that these mods are humans and are liable to make mistakes and may not take note of all those posters that are spamming.

[xLays]

Let's stop pretending we're here for some noble cause. We're all here for one reason: to make money from BITCOINTALK. That's the whole point.

You really should speak for yourself here.  When I came to this forum there were no signature campaigns.  There were no trolls.  It was all people who were here to help Bitcoin grow adoption and use cases.  It was an absolute paradise on the internet.  Everyone was supportive of each other and willing to share for the common good...  This started to change in 2014 and by 2018 the community was an absolute disaster.  So I guess for people who signed up after 2017 (and some after 2013), your words are probably mostly true.  Not for the 2011 crowd though.  Everyone made fun of us and said we'd go bankrupt supporting Bitcoin.  We did it anyway, because it wasn't about the money, it was about freeing mankind from financial oppression.  Be thankful the early folks had this opinion, or Bitcoin would have never gone above $35 a coin and would have died in 2012.

Yeah time changed, look you're one of us now.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Be thankful the early folks had this opinion, or Bitcoin would have never gone above $35 a coin and would have died in 2012.

And you should be grateful to the people who joined starting in 2017; otherwise, the price wouldn't have gone past $10K. Even many of you who got started early ended up worrying only about money and nothing else. Or was you buying MSTR stock a cyberpunk move in favor of P2P and against centralization?

Even Adam Back is all in on centralization these days, funding bitcoin treasury companies.

[libert19]

Looks like op only had intentions to stir things up, it posted and disappeared.

This thread is obviously a garbage thread yet it receives a lot of replies.  

I was going to respond what I said above yesterday but then I read your comment and felt that I might be feeding the garbage thread but since it continues, now Imma post it  

Edit: Typo

[JollyGood]

Important disclaimer: I am also using an alt account, as the account farmer gang here has the power to doxx members who try to snuff them out.

Interesting. The fact you are using an alt-account to make an argument or present a case should not negate any genuine concerns. I am sure most decent members would agree with your statement: Signature Campaign Must Stop Paying Spammer, Farmer, And Other Abuser.

Furthermore, Signature Campaign Must Stop Paying Spammer, Farmer, And Other Abuser probably disagree with your sentiments for obvious reasons.

Having said that, you posted in order to create this thread but have left the discussion. Was this really necessary? If you have that much concern for an issue you made you create a thread, you should at the very least be part of the conversation too. You have not given any member the opportunity to ask you questions including what you deem to be "spamming" in relation to what the feedback on a particular account that you listed (in the OP) states.

If you read this, return and join the discussion.

I have been saying this -indirectly- too but some people insist on not agreeing with it for some reason. The problem isn't that we are all here to make money, the real problem is that we are out of topics to talk about. The forum needs to expand itself towards the new hot topic, whatever that is, and it happens to be AI lately. The story of crypto has pretty much came to an end. People are not even interested in talking about crypto prices anymore. There are thousands of crypto out there and none of them are interesting but two; BTC and XMR. They work just fine, Bitcoin won. Monero won. One of them is the best general purpose coin, the other one is the king of privacy. There isn't a higher complement to crypto than this. They won, they accomplished their purpose. That also means the forum lost its reason to exist. Now what?

The forum originated in order to discuss Bitcoin related matters (such as mining, blockchain, development) but over time became more about other things. Maybe the Gambling boards have had a massive negative impact to the quality and ambience of the forum, I suppose that is something others will have their own strong views about.  

Maybe if there were less account farmers infesting the forum on an industrial scale, the general discussions in the threads would lean towards less spamming and less low quality posts. That might have helped the situation but as the account farmers have contributed to the demise and show no sign of slowing down, it is difficult to see a way going forward especially as they do not care about anything except earning from posting at all costs.

[alani123]

It's true that if a user has credible negative feedback they shouldn't be included in a campaign.

Off all the accounts listed in OP, some do indeed have credible bad trust ratings, many even from DT members.
So it would be a good idea campaign managers review these instances and answer why they might consider including such accoujts in their campaigns.
It would certainly be a positive practice for the forum to stop rewarding these members that contribute in negative ways and reward some other people instead.

[babo]

Let's stop pretending we're here for some noble cause. We're all here for one reason: to make money from BITCOINTALK. That's the whole point.

The only difference between us is our role and how we contribute. Some of us are campaign participants, while others happen to be campaign managers, moderators, or ADMIN. Those titles don't change the fundamental reason we're here.

Being campaign manager, moderator, or admin doesn't suddenly make you any less motivated by money than the user participating in signature campaigns. You're still here to earn, just like everyone else.

So let's cut the hypocrisy. Don't act like your position makes you morally superior to everyone else. At the end of the day, we're all here to make money. The only difference is how we do it, not why we're here.

The most vile, disgusting, and grotesque thing in the world, in my opinion, is precisely this... lying while knowing you're lying.
acting as champions of justice when there are ulterior motives
People like that, honestly, really disgust me. I hate them because they show a lack of coherence and a lack of correctness which in my opinion identifies them as people

Thanks for your words, from today you are in my trust list because I finally found someone who thinks like me

[NotATether]

Perhaps the best solution would be—instead of accepting questionable posters in campaigns, which would likely result in a signature ban as well as in this case—to increase the maximum number of paid posts per person per week.

This. There are sig campaigns that are having huge budgets, yet they are filled with below average posters that are getting sig banned on the regular basis. Wouldn't it make more sense to cut the numbers of participants and increase weekly caps, therefore potentially attract better posters, in a way CM did in the past.

Cut the number of participants yes, increase weekly caps no. Companies aren't going to pay extra just because there are less slots. In fact, studies in marketing have shown they actually pay less the smaller the marketing is.

Also, 30 posts a week is probably the ceiling for most people. How many people can realistically push higher than that without spamming? CM was an exception, because it was deliberately filled with high-quality, volume posters like LoyceV (and yours truly  ).

[PrivacyG]

The problem isn't that we are all here to make money, the real problem is that we are out of topics to talk about. The forum needs to expand itself towards the new hot topic, whatever that is, and it happens to be AI lately. The story of crypto has pretty much came to an end.

Bitcoin won. Monero won. One of them is the best general purpose coin, the other one is the king of privacy. There isn't a higher complement to crypto than this. They won, they accomplished their purpose. That also means the forum lost its reason to exist. Now what?

I disagree.  There are a lot of things to talk about and Bitcoin Talk is not all about finding ways to build more on top of Bitcoin, it is in the name, a place to discuss it.  Hell.  For people who have a lot more knowledge than the average user and can even read a code too, the topics to talk about are pretty much unlimited.

Bitcoin Talk will not lose its reason to exist, unless people do not want to talk about Bitcoin any more.  Talks about price, particularly outside the Speculation section, are pretty much boring because that is always a very repetitive 'may go up, may go down' and both ups and downs have been predicted simultaneously over and over again probably ever since Bitcoin has a price tag attached to it.  It is becoming bland there fore to predict it, every body does that and did it for over a decade.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Also, 30 posts a week is probably the ceiling for most people.

When you say “probably” and “most,” you're not being specific about anything.

How many people can realistically push higher than that without spamming? CM was an exception, because it was deliberately filled with high-quality, volume posters like LoyceV (and yours truly  ).

How many people were in the CM campaign? 50? Look at this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14_RRX2jy9yZ_44Uz3hb2sFTYbofqbU7iYzlkmv5-X_U/edit?gid=1110336729#gid=1110336729

Rikafip writes about 50 posts per week without being paid for the extra 25. In the same spreadsheet, there are 3 or 4 people who write around 35 without getting paid for the extra 10. If you start looking at the spreadsheets for the highest-paying campaigns one by one—$100 a week for Hero/Legendary or more—you'll find similar examples. But, of course, for advertisers, it's much better to pay someone for 25 posts and have them to write 40 or 50.

I'm sure that if a campaign comes along now that pays the same as these campaigns—$4 per post—but allows up to 50 posts, it'll attract the forum's best posters.