Topic: Account Farmers are the new Ponzis - page 2. (Read 7937 times)

I couldn't care less. Account sales should be banned on the forum and all accounts that are found to be involved in them should be permanently banned (no exceptions). Additionally, being able to wear a "flashy" signature should be a privilege (something in the lines of OgNasty's suggestion). This would considerably improve the quality of this forum. Until then, the staff will be playing whack-a-mole with signature spammers.

People make money by the illegal drug trade, performing hits on others and other malicious activities. By your logic, since these make some people money from these they should not be banned? Please think about what you say before you say it.

The staff have tried to be subtle and just delete posts, however this has just allowed it to escalate to the point it is currently. Subtlety allows people to exploit it for their own gains, which is unacceptable. Something drastic has to happen in order for the problem of account farming and spam to be stopped fully, especially considering the level it is currently at.

Exactly. Some of them aren't even trying to improve (e.g. they ignore posts that 'overthrow' their statement.

Depends on who handles the post and how it was reported. For example: If you report post number X in a thread that has 50 pages with "spam; has been said before", this would not be helpful. If you point out the previous post that it copies indirectly (rewritten content) then it would probably be deleted. Additionally, some moderators are just softer than others.

The problem then is moneypot. I would have to trust a third party online wallet, something which I don't do. I don't care if they are "trusted", I just don't trust or use any online wallet provider; many users here feel the same way.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Theymos is not fond of the idea of using a third party service for things related to the site (as in he doesn't have direct access and cannot fully control everything), especially when handling actual money. I'm also pretty sure the he doesn't like the idea where the forum is in charge of users' money.

1. No, I mentioned moneypot, they could handle the transactions

2. Everything you said after your first sentence is solved by moneypot

As long as sig campaigns are around, this won't change. This is one of the major reasons I took a break from the forums, it really isn't worth sifting through the mounds of vapid crap people post because they are being paid to do so.

So every time I want to post, I need to pay a few thousand satoshis and wait for the transaction to confirm before the post goes live? This idea just sounds like a pain in the ass because I need to open my wallet and send a transaction every time I want to post. Furthermore, this would contribute to blockchain bloat. Additionally, I may not always have access to my wallet. What if I am on mobile and don't have a mobile hot wallet? What if I am just hodling and all of my Bitcoin are locked away somewhere safe where I can't access them? This just deters people who do post constructively and don't have a signature simply out of the inconvenience that this causes.

Now, you may say that not all threads will be like that, but any thread that would have a decent discussion going on would have this enabled and having to pay to post in those threads would simply become bothersome.

---

---

A question for the mods: If a user posts something in a thread that has already been said and doesn't add anything new (as a lot of account farmers do), will the post be deleted as spam if it is reported?

I think we should revisit a pay per post option as I discussed a few months ago, When you are starting a thread, along with the regular option, there would be a paid per post feature, this would deter spammers from entering your thread, the amount should be somewhere around 10-20k satoshis. Moneypot could be used to handle the money, and the money collected doesn't go to the OP of the thread, it goes to the forum, which then donates this money to charity.

I think its a good Idea, tear it apart, If you are getting paid for posting, you shouldnt have any problem paying to post

Optics just means the way people perceive a issue.
Perception.

Luptin uses bullshit in the same way, reason I addressed it.

I over react because I know from past experience that when a mod disagrees with you the attack on character come out.
Will try to take your threads that feel nit picking like as suggestions to define who I am addressing in the future.

We were/are having a discussion, and no "us guys" can't apply anything.

Did you just overreact to me using a specific word? I could have used any other word which would have the same result (e.g. rubbish or gibberish); note: "bullshit" does not imply 'shut up'. I also don't understand the use of the word "optics"; elaborate your definition of it?

---

---

TL;dr: If your posts break the rules and get deleted, you are not being censored. That was the story behind my statement. Besides, most spammers do not really care as long as they generate profit.

Bullshit and nonsense for speaking on a potential issue and you see no problem with the optics obviously!
Thought we where having a discussion here, as I read this thread it felt like you guys where close to applying the plan. I see chewing through a lot of aspects and I bring up a optics issue and not only am I wrong I am told its bullshit by a mod!
Of course you can not see the issue as you think you are nothing but rational.
Bullshit implies the person has no leg to stand on and should shut up. You do this often and I am always told that this is just your way but its getting old.
If you are fine with it, then whatever It gets tedious talking to a wall, especially when so many other issues where open for talking.
Fine Lauda, any meta posts I will send to you for screening. (joke obviously)

You don't seem to understand either statements. Theymos is right when he says that the forum does not need more money, as in, it has enough money to remain fully functional. My statement was more general, e.g. you could donate the money to charity (which is a bad example, but applies).

Again, the point is not to generate money but to remove the majority of signature campaign participants (which are spammers anyways).

Again, a hasty and hyperbolic generalization. It comes down to the member; I could probably (if I wanted to) return that sum within 2 to 3 months.

If you have 10 accounts, you're risking 20 BTC. This seems much better in my eyes.

Telling a moderator what to do when he sees such a thread?

Bullshit. There is a huge difference between censorship and moderation. Free-speech does not mean that you can come and spread any kind of nonsense in a privately owned place.

Its a suggestion because sometimes optics or perception can override the issue. Not being able to see down the road but would rather people did not have a angle or leg to the argument by making it seem like a mod had it in for them.
We both know this not to be a problem but. it would be one less thread issue.

Mods are hired to enforce forum rules, how is it a conflict of interest?

This is about fighting the symptoms or fixing the root issue.

The issue there would be the optics that mods are censoring members. Think the issue should be handled by a member assigned to the signature that shows a unbiased  view point. Hilarious does a great job but ideally it would good if it was not a mod to limit potential conflict of interest.

If this is the case then I would suggest that you educate theymos on this so he stops telling people that the forum does not need money.

Again, I think that the price is too high and would result in excluding the majority of people who are not already wealthy.

I am not sure what your point is here. The statement that you quoted was giving evidence that I do not think the signature spammers will "invest" in the "fee" required to unlock better signature features.

Maybe "no one" is not entirely true, however anyone who is acting economically rational will not pay a fee that is designed to prevent anyone who pays said fee from ever earning a return on said fee.

If they have 10 accounts then they are risking $200 (plus the value of their accounts). Also note that many (possibly even most) of the signature spammers live in parts of the world where $1 is a lot of money.

If people are investing (and risking) their money into an account then they have incentives to not spam useless crap because if they do then they are risking getting banned and loosing their investment. It has already been clairified that low/no value threads are not allowed, so if you see one then I would suggest that you report to so a moderator with authority over that section can lock it.

When measured in number of threads, the market place sections is by far, the most active part of the forum (this would be even more so if the marketplace sections of mining were included in this), and the most important question that someone will consider when thinking about trading is how they will earn money with the trade.

If the sig campaigning issue was that bad, wouldn't it make sense for mods to delete the junk posts made by these spammers? I'm sure there are enough moderators to police the problem.

You always presume people would speak up when they realize their doom awaits them but it looks like I am either wrong about this issue or people are more scared then I thought to address this thread. I watched the views and think its the first of the two and I sadly have to submit to "Uncle"!
Was going to check those that came in to see what their post histories where like but now I just need to face facts that a majority of the signature careless or as you say are guilty of spamming the forum.

Here is my take/issue on this and it runs around in a bit of a circle of issues that have been addressed.

If you set the cut off for signatures at Full Member it would be a good starting point to curtail the issue.
Once this is set you can kick every one from their signatures and have them apply again,this time they get scrutinized closely form spam.
It would be a slow process but people will be easier to pick off with a posting history already established.
You can see a change from well written posts to garbage on entry and tell them to come back and apply again if they had a recent password change.

The selling of accounts off site you can do little about but you would stifle the flow some what by having people to question if the guy they are dealing with can be trusted and they would also most likely try to join a campaign right away,which means you can note their account for extra scrutiny when the password change disappears and they are permitted to join.

There will always be a angle you can not kill but it would address the stampede effect we had with spammers after getting their 30 posts.
I think there has been a drop off since Yobit changed to member and would expect more so once implementing 120 as a bar.


So rewinding to my earlier posts,I know I was wrong but at least we gave the people a chance to be heard.