raising awareness about some madness here

[mailmansDOG]

So some days ago mprep posted this:

Due to the amount of spam which is beginning to cause trouble particularly in this thread I have to put this out:

Warning to all posting in this thread or any other, especially alternate cryptocurrency, thread: Anyone posting in this thread or any other thread useless replies, such as "to the moon", "color the moon", "I like this coin", "Very good", "Done", "Waiting" etc. has a risk of getting their account banned. The thread owner has already stated not to post addresses. You have been warned.

You could say that this is a reasonable waring and I'm not going to disagree with that. But it wasn't until today. Myriads of accounts started getting banned without any personal warning or any given reason. Spam, insubstantial posts is the message you'd get if you were banned today. Most of the forum's frequent contributors are currently banned! I don't know if this was a global decision from the staff's part or if mprep is doing this for his own reasons but anyhow. Let me just point out some facts for the sake of the forum's well being.

mprep is the only staff member to use a paid signature

He has more than 4000 posts with his account and most of them are rarely contributing to the community in some way.

This makes the staff look bad. I know that there are people in this forum that have helped the community become what it is today. I don't know if it's too late to revise the bans because maybe the damage has already been done. But other forum staff should be aware of this and take apropriate action. In my humble opinion people like mprep are not loyal and suitable enough to hold such a position in this forum. Removing him from the staff would be the least that could be done right now.

But whatever the case is. The fact that mprep is being paid to post while most of his posts are in fact useless makes this whole situation ridiculous. If it wasn't him banning people then why would he be the one to put out a warning regarding spam while he's the single most "spammy" staff member?

EDIT: As quoted below, a post from BadBear

Yeah there's a ton of garbage being posted in off topic lately. I suspect it's paid sig spammers giving themselves threads to reply to.

I've suggested posts in off topic shouldn't count towards post count.

Hmm, not sure if the people behind the bots are from the paid sigs or not, but a lot obviously just jump at the chance to post something in a nonsense thread as soon as it's posted. Maybe having certain boards that don't affect your post count would cut the down the spam a bit, but I think it'd also just move a lot of it to somewhere else and we'll then see stupid discussions in the politics section or whatever.

I think we should disable the postcount feature entirely, don't you think ? We have activity , that should suffice.

I've actually suggested that too in the past, but it would still be relatively easy to determine posts, knowing there are 20 per page. I've resigned myself to the fact that we're going to have start banning people, didn't want to but it's getting out of hand. Banned a dozen this morning alone (1 week/2 week duration to start), with a dozen more under review, and I'm just getting started.  

It seems like BadBear handled out the bans for all members other than newbies. The points he makes are fair, but here's what frustrates me:

• He gives no warning before he bans people
• There are no clear guidelines on how not to get banned meaning that anyone would be banned without any given warning or reason

If BadBear wants a personal all out attack against signature campaign participants he can have it. But to me, this should not be the way to solve his personal issue. Given the above, he is able to ban anyone at anytime for any reason he thinks is apropriate. And that's something that shouldn't happen that easily.

He's just baning accounts by following his own opinion blindly. Do you really believe that he should be able to ban people just because he hates the fact they're participating in a signature campaign?

Final edit: You can see and judge for your own. There was some quite good discussion below. I'm going to leave the previous posts/edits above as is just for the record. But one last thing before I'm out. A warning would have also been taken seriously as well. But in fact, no warning was sent to any user because from what the situation seems to be like, the goal of the temp bans was to spread chaos and fear and make people scared to post more of what some members of the staff consider spam.

[hilariousandco]

What makes you think it was mprep? As far as I'm aware it was Badbear doing the banning (and possibly others). mprep just seemed to be giving you guys a friendly warning there which is probably more than what most of the other mods would do. I'm not sure whether individual users were given a warning prior to their ban or not, but if they weren’t I'm sure a warning would've been a better option first, but I guess the users who have been banned for a week or so can consider that as their warning now.

Yeah there's a ton of garbage being posted in off topic lately. I suspect it's paid sig spammers giving themselves threads to reply to.

I've suggested posts in off topic shouldn't count towards post count.

Hmm, not sure if the people behind the bots are from the paid sigs or not, but a lot obviously just jump at the chance to post something in a nonsense thread as soon as it's posted. Maybe having certain boards that don't affect your post count would cut the down the spam a bit, but I think it'd also just move a lot of it to somewhere else and we'll then see stupid discussions in the politics section or whatever.

I think we should disable the postcount feature entirely, don't you think ? We have activity , that should suffice.

I've actually suggested that too in the past, but it would still be relatively easy to determine posts, knowing there are 20 per page. I've resigned myself to the fact that we're going to have start banning people, didn't want to but it's getting out of hand. Banned a dozen this morning alone (1 week/2 week duration to start), with a dozen more under review, and I'm just getting started.  

[mprep]

I placed the warning since that specific thread was gaining over 5 pages per day of absolute spam/clutter and the alt section has been troublesome for a long time. Most of these spamming were newbies with one or two posts (usually zero or low quality as well) and I only banned newbies since I only have jurisdiction over that member group. The warning was even put at the top of the thread. That means:

1. They haven't even read the first page of the thread, not talking about the whole thread.
2. They don't contribute to the discussion.
3. They cause serious clutter and bump down any worthwhile thread.

That's the classification of a spammer. Also, could you link exact profiles of the banned members you are talking about?

EDIT: Regarding the paid signature, every moderator is human being just like everyone else. I can have my own opinion and I can choose whom to endorse or advertise. We're not mindless drones.

And the post count? I've been here for over 2 years and have been fully active (as seen by my activity) for 420 days. That would mean that I posted during the active period around 10 posts per day - a normal amount for an active forum participant. I've actively spent (as it can be seen here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=51173;sa=statPanel) around 26 days and 9 hours in front of the forum. That is 37980 minutes spent here. So I've posted a post around every 10 minutes of my time spent here - much less than these active participants you are talking about, which I didn't ban.

[SelbyTsang]

It is meaningless to just look at the post count. You should consider the post quality as well.

A new user making 10 spam posts all over the board should be banned, even if he has only made 10 posts.
An user making 100 posts a day is okay as long as his posts are all useful and constructive.

[BadBear]

It wasn't mprep, it was me, he was just passing along some useful info that he has and thought would be useful for you guys.

[phantastisch]

• There are no clear guidelines on how not to get banned meaning that anyone would be banned without any given warning or reason

Well I personnally would go with : Not make a lot of posts that are one-liners, off-topic, in the off-topic section or answers that are clearly just answering the headline without reading the other posts after including a signature advertisement. But that's just me.

[BadBear]

It seems like BadBear handled out the bans for all members other than newbies. The points he makes are fair, but here's what frustrates me:

• He gives no warning before he bans people
• There are no clear guidelines on how not to get banned meaning that anyone would be banned without any given warning or reason

If BadBear wants a personal all out attack against signature campaign participants he can have it. But to me, this should not be the way to solve his personal issue. Given the above, he is able to ban anyone at anytime for any reason he thinks is apropriate. And that's something that shouldn't happen that easily.

He's just baning accounts by following his own opinion blindly. Do you really believe that he should be able to ban people just because he hates the fact they're participating in a signature campaign?

I don't want to ban people, I quite dislike it actually, I think everyone should be free to express themselves here with minimal restrictions. I've declined to ban people many times up to now for this, and I've been wracking my brain thinking of ways to deal with it without having to ban people. The longest running thread in the staff forum besides the ban request thread is a thread about the paid signature campaign and how to deal with it. It's a huge issue. This spam has to stop, people are making worthless post after post and drowning out good discussion with complete garbage and it's ruining this forum.  

 The only thing that has been done about it is this.

Perhaps the allowed signature styling should change with activity score / membergroup. Like:
- Newbie: No styling (including links) allowed. Max 40 characters.
- Jr. Member: Links allowed. Max 100 characters.
- Member: Unlimited length.
- Full: Color allowed.
- Sr. Member: Size allowed
- Hero: Background color allowed

Then newbies will be less effective advertisers, which would hopefully significantly reduce the incentive for low-content posts. And when people become capable of effectively advertising through their signatures, they'll have invested a lot of time into their accounts, and they won't risk being banned by spamming.

After this, they just upped their payments in order to attract more of the higher ranking members. And the risk? What risk? It's really hard to get banned here, you have to be a spambot or a complete idiot to get banned here. There is no risk, which makes this measure completely and utterly worthless, and that obviously isn't what theymos intended if you read that post. There needs to be some risk, and I'm going to make sure there is, or else I'm failing everyone on this forum in my duties as a moderator. I've made many posts with suggestions on how to fix this issue without having to resort to banning people, but in reality none of them really work without punishing everyone. I don't like that it's come to this, but it's necessary.

[hilariousandco]

I don't want to ban people, I quite dislike it actually, I think everyone should be free to express themselves here with minimal restrictions. I've declined to ban people many times up to now for this, and I've been wracking my brain thinking of ways to deal with it without having to ban people. The longest running thread in the staff forum besides the ban request thread is a thread about the paid signature campaign and how to deal with it. It's a huge issue. This spam has to stop, people are making worthless post after post and drowning out good discussion with complete garbage and it's ruining this forum.  

 After this, they just upped their payments in order to attract more of the higher ranking members. And the risk? What risk? It's really hard to get banned here, you have to be a spambot or a complete idiot to get banned here. There is no risk, which makes this measure completely and utterly worthless, and that obviously isn't what theymos intended if you read that post. There needs to be some risk, and I'm going to make sure there is, or else I'm failing everyone on this forum in my duties as a moderator. I've made many posts with suggestions on how to fix this issue without having to resort to banning people, but in reality none of them really work without punishing everyone. I don't like that it's come to this, but it's necessary.

I think deleting the offending posts and/or messaging them a warning that if they continue to post crap at their current rate they will be banned will be a stern enough warning. If they're having their posts actually deleted then this will obviously make them step up their content as it's not worth it to them and is actually counter-productive to keep doing so. If after a warning they continue to act the same then give them a weeks ban as punishment and then they should get the idea. Like you said, many don't want to risk their accounts as they are valuable to them so banning outright, especially without a warning (if you didn't give them any other warning), should be a last resort and could probably be avoided in most cases.

[mailmansDOG]

BadBear, we obviously have a different opinion on signature campaigns but I'm perfectly fine with that. I won't go far supporting my opinion and I also appreciate that you're here explaining what is happening and giving us some insight. But honestly, what's to earn out of giving people the impression there is a "risk to get banned"? A handful of people probably already got banned. And this happens while a nother handfull of people is having a daily three digit post count. Do you think that the ones that got banned are going to come back and never spam again in fear of not getting banned again? According to my humble opinion again you should At least let them know why they got baned in more detail. Let them know specifically what post of them was it that you didn't like. Don't just press the "ban button" without getting into the effort to explain why the user got banned. This is going to prevent people from being repeat offenders and also help make the situation more clear. You should do this anyway if you don't want people to come back at you complaining for an unfair ban.

Because to me, it seems normal to get complains if accounts get banned without any previous warning. (And no I don't think the posts you made as warnings are proper for this situation, it's so easy to miss one post out of thousands no matter how ipmportant it is.)

[BadBear]

I think deleting the offending posts and/or messaging them a warning that if they continue to post crap at their current rate they will be banned will be a stern enough warning. If they're having their posts actually deleted then this will obviously make them step up their content as it's not worth it to them and is actually counter-productive to keep doing so. If after a warning they continue to act the same then give them a weeks ban as punishment and then they should get the idea. Like you said, many don't want to risk their accounts as they are valuable to them so banning outright, especially without a warning (if you didn't give them any other warning), should be a last resort and could probably be avoided in most cases.

There's too many to delete posts one by one, it takes 3-5 seconds to delete one post. Deleting posts in threads is different because there is a quick moderation option available via checkboxes and they can all be deleted at once, this isn't possible on a users post history page, has to be done one by one. PM warnings are useless in my experience and you just end up in circular arguments. The week ban is the warning.

BadBear, we obviously have a different opinion on signature campaigns but I'm perfectly fine with that. I won't go far supporting my opinion and I also appreciate that you're here explaining what is happening and giving us some insight. But honestly, what's to earn out of giving people the impression there is a "risk to get banned"?

Well it's our only option at the moment, besides just let it continue. if this doesn't work then we'll need to explore other options, such as disabling sigs, not allowing links, or filtering links from services such as the ones who buy signature space for ads.

A handful of people probably already got banned. And this happens while a nother handfull of people is having a daily three digit post count.

I'll get around to them eventually, I have a whole thread dedicated to maintaining a list of these folks with input from all moderators welcome. Also have users pm'ing me with suggestions, a lot of people are sick of this.

Do you think that the ones that got banned are going to come back and never spam again in fear of not getting banned again?

It takes at least two months to get an account worth selling signature space on, I'm pretty sure it'll work.

According to my humble opinion again you should At least let them know why they got baned in more detail. Let them know specifically what post of them was it that you didn't like. Don't just press the "ban button" without getting into the effort to explain why the user got banned. This is going to prevent people from being repeat offenders and also help make the situation more clear. You should do this anyway if you don't want people to come back at you complaining for an unfair ban.

Because to me, it seems normal to get complains if accounts get banned without any previous warning. (And no I don't think the posts you made as warnings are proper for this situation, it's so easy to miss one post out of thousands no matter how ipmportant it is.)

I haven't seen many complaints, just two people who didn't know how long they were banned for and why because I forgot to add the reason and duration in the text field (I pm'ed them when I saw their post). Most of these folks know full well why they were banned.
 

[hilariousandco]

I think deleting the offending posts and/or messaging them a warning that if they continue to post crap at their current rate they will be banned will be a stern enough warning. If they're having their posts actually deleted then this will obviously make them step up their content as it's not worth it to them and is actually counter-productive to keep doing so. If after a warning they continue to act the same then give them a weeks ban as punishment and then they should get the idea. Like you said, many don't want to risk their accounts as they are valuable to them so banning outright, especially without a warning (if you didn't give them any other warning), should be a last resort and could probably be avoided in most cases.

There's too many to delete posts one by one, it takes 3-5 seconds to delete one post. Deleting posts in threads is different because there is a quick moderation option available via checkboxes and they can all be deleted at once, this isn't possible on a users post history page, has to be done one by one. PM warnings are useless in my experience and you just end up in circular arguments. The week ban is the warning.

You don't have to delete them all, but I still think a quick warning threatening a ban if they continue would be more beneficial to all involved and they'd more often than not get the message, and if they didn't then a brief ban would give them time for that to sink in. Could an option to delete users posts with check boxes not be implemented?

BadBear, we obviously have a different opinion on signature campaigns but I'm perfectly fine with that. I won't go far supporting my opinion and I also appreciate that you're here explaining what is happening and giving us some insight. But honestly, what's to earn out of giving people the impression there is a "risk to get banned"?

Well it's our only option at the moment, besides just let it continue. if this doesn't work then we'll need to explore other options, such as disabling sigs, not allowing links, or filtering links from services such as the ones who buy signature space for ads.

I don't think the first option should be banning everybody from having signatures altogether. As a last resort ban the actual paid campaigns or the urls of specific offenders who don't keep in line with policing their own users/deals, but I guess that can even be circumvented as links can just be cloaked easy enough. I think a lot of people will get the message with the recent bans and it'll spread some fear or warning to others though, but I still think a message to offenders first would've been much better.

[Rigon]

Why you all foucos your energy on nonsense when theymos gave us the ignore button.  I like freedom of expression.  I read here alot of stuff dont respond much but love to read what others say here.

[Rigon]

I think deleting the offending posts and/or messaging them a warning that if they continue to post crap at their current rate they will be banned will be a stern enough warning. If they're having their posts actually deleted then this will obviously make them step up their content as it's not worth it to them and is actually counter-productive to keep doing so. If after a warning they continue to act the same then give them a weeks ban as punishment and then they should get the idea. Like you said, many don't want to risk their accounts as they are valuable to them so banning outright, especially without a warning (if you didn't give them any other warning), should be a last resort and could probably be avoided in most cases.

There's too many to delete posts one by one, it takes 3-5 seconds to delete one post. Deleting posts in threads is different because there is a quick moderation option available via checkboxes and they can all be deleted at once, this isn't possible on a users post history page, has to be done one by one. PM warnings are useless in my experience and you just end up in circular arguments. The week ban is the warning.

You don't have to delete them all, but I still think a quick warning threatening a ban if they continue would be more beneficial to all involved and they'd more often than not get the message, and if they didn't then a brief ban would give them time for that to sink in. Could an option to delete users posts with check boxes not be implemented?

BadBear, we obviously have a different opinion on signature campaigns but I'm perfectly fine with that. I won't go far supporting my opinion and I also appreciate that you're here explaining what is happening and giving us some insight. But honestly, what's to earn out of giving people the impression there is a "risk to get banned"?

Well it's our only option at the moment, besides just let it continue. if this doesn't work then we'll need to explore other options, such as disabling sigs, not allowing links, or filtering links from services such as the ones who buy signature space for ads.

I don't think the first option should be banning everybody from having signatures altogether. As a last resort ban the actual paid campaigns or the urls of specific offenders who don't keep in line with policing their own users/deals, but I guess that can even be circumvented as links can just be cloaked easy enough. I think a lot of people will get the message with the recent bans and it'll spread some fear or warning to others though, but I still think a message to offenders first would've been much better.

also not everyone can express themselves very well like you can. What if there from another culture then this forum is being very judgemental on peoples posting style.

[hilariousandco]

also not everyone can express themselves very well like you can. What if there from another culture then this forum is being very judgemental on peoples posting style.

Well that may be a concern and should certainly be taken into consideration, but it shouldn't be a problem if it's clear you are not just posting rubbish constantly for payment. I'm also sure you would be perfectly fine if you didn't have a signature, so you wont be discriminated against purely for being from another culture or a non-English speaking country.

[BadBear]

I think deleting the offending posts and/or messaging them a warning that if they continue to post crap at their current rate they will be banned will be a stern enough warning. If they're having their posts actually deleted then this will obviously make them step up their content as it's not worth it to them and is actually counter-productive to keep doing so. If after a warning they continue to act the same then give them a weeks ban as punishment and then they should get the idea. Like you said, many don't want to risk their accounts as they are valuable to them so banning outright, especially without a warning (if you didn't give them any other warning), should be a last resort and could probably be avoided in most cases.

There's too many to delete posts one by one, it takes 3-5 seconds to delete one post. Deleting posts in threads is different because there is a quick moderation option available via checkboxes and they can all be deleted at once, this isn't possible on a users post history page, has to be done one by one. PM warnings are useless in my experience and you just end up in circular arguments. The week ban is the warning.

You don't have to delete them all, but I still think a quick warning threatening a ban if they continue would be more beneficial to all involved and they'd more often than not get the message, and if they didn't then a brief ban would give them time for that to sink in. Could an option to delete users posts with check boxes not be implemented?

I don't make threats.

I've asked for such an option before, but really if you need that option to delete so many of a user's posts, they should probably be banned anyway. Still a good option to have to clean up after the ban though. Should be suggested for the new forum software.  

BadBear, we obviously have a different opinion on signature campaigns but I'm perfectly fine with that. I won't go far supporting my opinion and I also appreciate that you're here explaining what is happening and giving us some insight. But honestly, what's to earn out of giving people the impression there is a "risk to get banned"?

Well it's our only option at the moment, besides just let it continue. if this doesn't work then we'll need to explore other options, such as disabling sigs, not allowing links, or filtering links from services such as the ones who buy signature space for ads.

I don't think the first option should be banning everybody from having signatures altogether. As a last resort ban the actual paid campaigns or the urls of specific offenders who don't keep in line with policing their own users/deals, but I guess that can even be circumvented as links can just be cloaked easy enough. I think a lot of people will get the message with the recent bans and it'll spread some fear or warning to others though, but I still think a message to offenders first would've been much better.

Maybe, like I said though, most people don't take pm warnings seriously. Hell most people probably don't even know who I am if they don't read meta, which most don't. Why would they listen to me? No use debating what might've been though.

[hilariousandco]

I don't make threats.

I've asked for such an option before, but really if you need that option to delete so many of a user's posts, they should probably be banned anyway. Still a good option to have to clean up after the ban though. Should be suggested for the new forum software.  

BadBear, we obviously have a different opinion on signature campaigns but I'm perfectly fine with that. I won't go far supporting my opinion and I also appreciate that you're here explaining what is happening and giving us some insight. But honestly, what's to earn out of giving people the impression there is a "risk to get banned"?

Well it's our only option at the moment, besides just let it continue. if this doesn't work then we'll need to explore other options, such as disabling sigs, not allowing links, or filtering links from services such as the ones who buy signature space for ads.

I don't think the first option should be banning everybody from having signatures altogether. As a last resort ban the actual paid campaigns or the urls of specific offenders who don't keep in line with policing their own users/deals, but I guess that can even be circumvented as links can just be cloaked easy enough. I think a lot of people will get the message with the recent bans and it'll spread some fear or warning to others though, but I still think a message to offenders first would've been much better.

Maybe, like I said though, most people don't take pm warnings seriously. Hell most people probably don't even know who I am if they don't read meta, which most don't. Why would they listen to me? No use debating what might've been though.

Well you don't have to make 'threats' per se, but a stern warning would be more courteous first and I'm sure they'd then know who you were after a quick PM  . I can only speak for myself, but if I ever got an official warning for something I'd be more likely to tread carefully and change my ways and would be pretty annoyed if I just found out I was banned without warning. I certainly wouldn't ignore it that's for sure, but I can't speak for everyone and obviously you have more experience on this than me, but just my BTC0.00000002  .

[malevolent]

I do give warnings from time to time, and sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't. Spammers wielding ads in their sigs are generally a group for whom warnings, at least in my limited experience, rarely work. They tend to get very defensive if I tell them they should work on improving the quality of their posts.

[Moonway99]

Now at the current situation you guys are banning accounts that has posted a lot of useless posts. But you are not looking for solution to this. So what you want Is only constructive posts on forum? You should set exact detailed criterion for posts. Who doesn't follow them should get a warning, and give exact time to stop posting posts that doesn't meet criterion. If the time exceeds to start making normal constructive posts ban for that account should be applied BUT I don't think It should be permanent. Bans for accounts that keeps posting useless posts should be up to 1 month in my opinion. When time expires and he/she starts to post useless posts again, he will instantly get 30 days ban again.

I think that would be a solution? What do you think?

[BadBear]

Now at the current situation you guys are banning accounts that has posted a lot of useless posts. But you are not looking for solution to this. So what you want Is only constructive posts on forum? You should set exact detailed criterion for posts. Who doesn't follow them should get a warning, and give exact time to stop posting posts that doesn't meet criterion. If the time exceeds to start making normal constructive posts ban for that account should be applied BUT I don't think It should be permanent. Bans for accounts that keeps posting useless posts should be up to 1 month in my opinion. When time expires and he/she starts to post useless posts again, he will instantly get 30 days ban again.

I think that would be a solution? What do you think?

I've only permanently banned one so far IIRC, the rest (close to 30 now since yesterday) are about 80% 1 week, 20% 2 weeks (the really bad ones). Second ban 4 weeks/8 for the bad ones, third may be permanent, depends on who it is and their history.  

I'm not going to set an exact criteria for posts, if one needs that, then one is probably part of the problem and a waste of my time.

[BadBear]

I do give warnings from time to time, and sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't. Spammers wielding ads in their sigs are generally a group for whom warnings, at least in my limited experience, rarely work. They tend to get very defensive if I tell them they should work on improving the quality of their posts.

Yes, when I was referring to warnings being useless I meant specifically this type of poster/situation. There are many levelheaded and good people here who respond well. These folks on the other hand, are paid advertisers, and like the saying goes, money talks, bullshit walks.