Topic: Abuse of self-moderation by scammers (Read 474 times)

This topic is not helpful to get translated for your fellow local board members because it's a Meta-related suggestion to improve forum functions.
In addition, this topic is more than 5 YEARS old...
Or how should this topic be helpful for your local board? Have you actually read it? 

There are hundreds (probably thousands) of more helpful topics to get translated, like this one: [TIPS] to avoid pyramid quotes (for Newbies)

Hello, @1miau I will like you to permit me to translate this topic to my local board Nigeria (pidgin)

Plus they'd just use alternate accounts. That's what's happening already all the time. That would only make it harder to spot the scammer.

A self-moderated thread by someone who is suspicious or who just wants to create a bounty campaign is an instant red flag for me.
Usually, you don't need self-moderated threads unless you aim for a clean thread which is usually done when the topic is either complex or you have some specific posting "rules". There really is no reason to make a bounty thread or ANN self-moderated. If someone spams, report him, if it's viable critique, live with it and either reason with people or ignore them.

While this is a good idea on paper, it does remove the ability of people of people who are wrongly painted in red to run a thread where they don't want any spam at all. As this forum is riddled with spam, imagine how hard it would be for someone to run some sort of services thread (maybe web design or something along these lines) without having the ability to remove all of the signature campaign spammers.

While it is a good idea on paper, I would much rather have the scammers using self-moderated and regular rule-abiding people using it as well. It makes the most sense like this. Just paint the scammers red.

I'll admit censorship was a poor choice of word. But, you are preventing them from doing something that everyone else on the forum can do. Not every self moderated thread is going to be with malicious intent, regardless whether they are untrustworthy or not. These days it's probably expected that someone would prefer to moderate their own threads from the spammers.

The thing is about the newbie restrictions is they can removed these limitations by ranking up. I'm usually against most restrictions, and especially in this case when there's alternatives such as creating your own thread outlining the abuse, or not creating an alternative discussion without self moderation.

What is considered a "scam" is sometimes subjective. Some scams are clear cut while others are a matter of opinion.

A self moderated thread in itself is already a warning that it is a possible scam - that dissenting speech is being silenced. You can make your own thread - just not comment in theirs.

It is for DT members (and others) to determine who they trust and state their reason. Negative trust can mean anything from a disagreement of opinion to someone scamming or stealing crypto. There are far more potential scammers that haven't yet been caught or rated.

Every system generally is flawed but the current system works reasonably well.

A fool and their money or bitcoin are easily separated so self education is essential.

How is that censorship - it doesn't really restrict their speech, does it? They could still post anything they want but they couldn't delete posts... which sounds like it would benefit free speech.

The forum already applies similar restrictions on using certain forum features, e.g. newbies can't embed images or send more than a few PMs.

yooh... you got it, I see no sense in given someone a red trust and after that, he goes on parading in this forum as a brigadier. to be fair, I think it will be better to implement some sort of limitations to those red trust members. they are growing worst and worst each and every day. you give them one red trust today, and before the month ends they already have 3 more red trusts, and these RED Trusts have no effect on them at all, except for those doing signature campaigns.

I agree, but this wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was to limit self-moderation only for confirmed scammers abusing this function purposefully.

The freedom of speech wouldn't be affected with my idea. The scammer can still post everything he wants to, only limitation would be that he isn't able to delete critical comments from his ANN. After all my idea would ensure freedom of speech because there is no option to delete comments by the scammer.

In this case I metioned the scammer abusing this function by deleting warnings from other members in his self-moderated threads. If the self-moderation would be disabled for him as a confirmed scammer he must arrange with comments in his thread he doesn't like. Thats freedom of speach: arrange with critical comments and I'm sure every scammer won't like it 

I fucking swear! Shit like this is really annoying af.

---

People should protect themselves. If they are confused they should ask people,the non scammers for help. Literal spoonfeeding won't take them anywhere. Self-Moderation should exist. Just because a person is a scammer,he shouldn't lose his right of free speech. And not everyone who has a negative trust rating is a scammer. The real scammers are well enjoying themselves.

Only disable self-moderation for scammers if they have a high negative trust score - this needs to be confirmed by several DT-Members (with red trust), so we have a sufficient proof that it is a real scammer abusing this function in his thread to delete comments pointing out his project is a scam.

But you're right it is unlikely there will be a change - it's implemention might be difficult. 

I tried to point out, why I had this idea and give an example for an abuse of self-moderation. I can imagine you have to read a lot here, especially lots of bullshit posts, so I will try to get straight to my point the next time. The same as in my original post could have been said in less words, that's true. 


Personally I think self-moderation is a very good function, if you are creating an interesting topic and it gets flooded instantly by bullshit spam comments. I have already an idea of a new topic where a self-moderation could be very helpful - stay tuned! But the abuse of self-moderation is exactly the other side: giving scammers a tool to erase comments pointing out this scam.
I really appreciate the positive sides, the last thing I want here is censorship. But we all know about the members misleading users and their intention to scam others. 

So finally we can say: there are two sides of the same coin. 

Theymos calls them volunteers. They do get paid, but they don't get paid a lot in comparison to how much they do to get rid of all the spam here.
People aren't that apathetic. If you want proof, look at my trust, I got negged by a noob for not reading someone's usermame ! If that much effort was put in over something so stupid, surely a scammer who deletes and negs posts will also get his comeuppance.

Read somewhere by someone in the Staff that it's effectively like volunteering. Might have been wrong about that.

Not sure how the mod payments work exactly (if they're based on the number of reports or what-have-you). For the individual, that is - not the collective. I certainly hope it's not a fixed amount since then there would be no incentive to work harder.

---

And again:

So the big suggestion here is to not allow self-moderated threads.  I wouldn't be opposed to that, since they bring far more benefit to scammers than to ordinary members--but scams aren't even moderated on bitcointalk, so I highly doubt Theymos is going to do away with that feature.  It's better to just be on guard for bullshit.

If I may make a suggestion:  Get to the point with threads like this.  The part of your post I quoted is your idea, and the rest of your post is kind of just fluff.  There are many of us with attention span disorders, and we love posts that get straight to the point.

And people definitely have done that, but I wouldn't count on that as a warning system.  I'm sure there are plenty of people who are too apathetic to start up a scam accusation thread.  When I see a self-moderated thread in which the OP is trying to promote something--an ICO, a campaign, whatever--I'm instantly suspicious, and I think others should probably adopt that attitude as well.  Yes, they could be trying to limit spam in the thread but it is definitely a mechanism by which dissent can be suppressed, and it can easily cover up helpful criticism.

 
Mods are not volunteers.  They are paid monthly for their service.

I might be more active in fighting scammers if I was paid a monthly stipend, but for now I do what I do out of love for bitcoin. 

The point is that some people will still disregard the negative feedback, regardless of how red they are. (e.g. Betcoin, Bilibit ICO)

The problem is that we seem to always dismiss these things with "more work for mods" when the fact of the matter is that (AFAICT) moderators aren't doing as much as they could. Yes, they are volunteers. Yes, there's a lot of work. But I'm still seeing the same pointless, redundant and general threads that have been around for months (which should have been locked/moved/trashed a long time ago).

If we do implement something like this for DT it has to be foolproof.

Extra work for moderators and slower response time than DT action, and what would be the point?  Scammers like Quickseller have negative trust in the hundreds and they still post like they are respected here.

What does a scammer tag do?  Restrict you from certain boards?  Couldn't that be implemented into the current trust system?

This is exactly why we need a scammer tag for blatant/explicit scammers. Sure, leave the grey area for DT to handle but when you have something that is clearly a scam, beyond a reasonable doubt, then it should be applied. I mean, the fact that scammers are treated better than spammers is kind of ridiculous. (i.e. spammers get banned, scammers get their own ponzi section)

Thats a good point, censorship is nothing we want to have here, and we have to choose the requirements to disable self-moderation very carefully. Like over 100 negative trust or even more. So a huge number of DT members has to confirm his intention to scam other members.
But my suggestion is no censorship, the scammer still can do comments in his threads and promote his scam, no problem, even it's a bad scam, but he isn't able to delete critical ones. This is the point I want to make. He is confrontated with other opinions about his confirmed scam and can't erase them.

Meh, it would be sort of censorship, and against everything this forum stands for; Free speech. The forum doesn't really moderate scams, and I don't think limiting a scammer of creating self moderated threads is fair. Creating a new thread, and referencing it us probably good enough in the majority of cases I think.

They well be a scammer, but censorship is censorship. If you don't want to get your comment deleted open up a thread where others can also share their thoughts.