Topic: About SMAS bans. (Read 553 times)

Not every campaign have minimum post and also I believe the campaign is a contract between someone willing to hire and the other who is willing go offer his service to be binded by some conditions even before the commencement of such assignment. So, if a user knows I won't be able to meet this conditions, he shouldn't bother to join in which I have seen people who have notified their managers about dropping from a campaign due to their tight schedule amongst other reason. Its just the right thing to do. And if you are found wanting, you face the music but I also agree that it should be tampered with some mercy as op has rightly noted.

Bitmixer doesn't have a minimum.  No minimum or extremely low minimum campaigns (just to show that you're vaguely active on the forum) are the best way to go, but campaign managers who set minimums just want someone who is consistent so that their advertising on the forum actually works.  It would be bad for them if they had to do extremely high payouts one week and extremely low another.  Spammers are their own fault.  It's not hard to post a lot in a week and not be a spammer.

Moderators haven't really done anything to be frank.  It's only the initiative of the managers.

Overall, OP, I don't really get what you're saying through that wall of text.  Managers should all be following SMAS - if they didn't, they would be accepting loads of spammers.  The users who created the list are clever enough to know who's a blatant spammer, and the ex-spammers can appeal to leave the list, but it's completely right that other managers follow the list, otherwise any spammer could just jump between ten campaigns one by one spamming the hell out of all of them until he finally gets banned (unlikely) gives up on decent pay (unlikely) or joins YoBit (likely).

Manu signature campaign lead people to spam. the most common are the condition minimum 25-30 post per week. In that way sig. campaign the owner insists that someone puts a lot of posts weekly. punishment for someone who posts only 10-15 post weekly is ban from the campaign and sometimes list on SMAS. seems to me illogical in the faith against a spammer.
discussions are reduced to repeating all the same words, just to meet the minimum quota of required posts
regards

Whether you're a spammer or not is entirely irrelevant to my personal list (which is managed independently from SMAS, but is incorporated into it). My list reads: "Low quality/insubstantial/repetitive posts - SPAM". This means that even if you aren't the classic 1 liner shit poster, if your post quality is not adequate you will get banned.

SMAS does not force any campaign manager to do anything. Yahoo does not have to accept any of my bans should he chose not to. However, if he starts ignoring my bans (or I his, in cases where I can apply them) it makes no sense for SMAS to exist. Therefore, I'm going to answer this with a 'rational no'.

I've extended the initial ban period to 60 days primarily because of a high % of baboons who waste time by re-applying right away with zero sign of improvement. If you are truly not just posting to get paid, re-applying in a few months when you're confident enough is the right course of action (unless I specifically told you to come back to me as soon as the 'time-out period' is over).

---

Also, this isn't a forum matter (regardless of SMAS being in this section). I'd put this into Service Discussion or similar.

I agree that SMAS should consider to make an exception on how they will remove people who on their instead of once make it twice or thrice.
But people on the list should atleast take that one chance of removal to change since 1 month is already a lot of time to change your way of posting.
I, too has been putted in SMAS by Lauda which is one of the very strict campaign manager out here. But instead of a month, I waited for almost 2-3months to request for a review since I know for myself that my post for that month isn't fully that good and constructive.

Even I want everything in the interest of forum and I love the work you do to categorize spammers and put them in a list different from the ones who are good in their posting. But, some of those "spammers" might actually not be "spammers" and may show some signs of improvement. That's what I have been asking from the start that if such signs are seen, can't a user be given a chance from another manager of SMAS campaign itself on their own consent?

No one is forced to follow the SMAS list but we do encourage managers to consider it. Only 2 actual list are out there far as i know. My list and Laudas list. If you are placed on either list then we will both reject you if we are managing a campaign and you apply.

Hi managers and moderators,
I want to let you know that I am extremely grateful with all the work you guys do, from managing signatures and forums to banning users who try to take disadvantage of such things through spamming. But what I don't understand is, if one moderator has banned someone and put them on their list, then others won't give them a chance because the union of 3 and more (who decide to follow SMAS list) are together. That is completely understandable. But then, if that's the case, what if one of these 3 and/or more sees any signs of improvement in the quality of posts that that entity (who requests for an unban after a month) has made? Can't they give a chance to that person once more to prove that they have improved whether a bit or much better than before? I know that there's no point in making such a list, but then, if all of these managers follow their rules, can't such rule be made to give some relief to users too? I am highly thankful to the moderators who have found such a great initiative to throw out the worst and take in the best ones, but shouldn't those genuine posters be given another chance through any of the moderators, even being on anyone's list (after one month has passed already)? This is just an urge / a request to the managers and no such hard feelings are there, hope I won't see some harsh replies.