Topic: (AndySt) The next abuser of stake campaign? - page 2. (Read 1027 times)

You should realize that after that user hinted me to not doing such strategy, you shouldn't do that anymore in any similar practice! there's no much difference replying word "Yes" and quoting without wrote anything.

There's nothing wrong for editing post, but in this case you're did suspicious and it's worth to discuss.
Maximum of a hour or two, how old you're? can you count how long it is from 11 PM to 12 AM? it's really a maximum of two hours as you mentioned above?



I never said it's against forum rules, but this is about a rules of your campaign and the decision is depend on Caroll who're the manager of your campaign.

This is an idea cheat how to make your post counted on the previous day since you're active on the next day, which is you're failed to meet the minimum 5 days since you're active only for 4 days/week.

Dear friends! I am very pleased that my humble person has attracted attention, which means I am popular, and it is very unpleasant that I have attracted attention in this context.
I will reveal some secrets of my kitchen, for a very long time I marked those posts to which I will answer and leave my detailed comment with the word "Yes", but after one user gently hinted that it was quite ugly and confusing to some forum users, I immediately stopped this practice and no longer do this. It is very strange to me that now it has been dragged into the light of God and they are trying to use it against me. The maximum that I allow myself to do now, so as not to get confused and forget where I should leave my comment, I leave an empty post, which I IMMEDIATELY then fill with text. Also, I don't see anything wrong with editing my posts, by the way, not the next day, but for a maximum of an hour or two, because I am VERY scrupulous about the quality of my posts and try to thoroughly reveal my thought. The next day may be due to the usual time of publication of my posts around midnight on the forum version, which is convenient for me. If this is allowed by the rules of the forum and is convenient for me, then why shouldn't I do it? Therefore, I do not scribble in ten or twenty posts for one short sentence just to fit into the minimum, as some forum members do here, and my posts are quite capacious and I protect my creative self from emotional and verbal burnout. Everyone has their own ideas about how to write on the forum, so I have this idea about it. If you have complaints about the quality of my posts, that's one thing, but when it comes to purely technical issues, my heart is filled with pain because of the injustice of such a situation. I hope for an objective attitude towards me, and not to the witch hunt.

Oh, I just reread my previous post; I was supposed to say a neutral tag with a "strong message," but I made a mistake! I've always maintained that the negative tag is not appropriate for spammers.

I don't think negative tag solve the problem and maybe it's not the best way to give it to spammers given the trust system isn't meant to tag spammers. If that's possible, then we should have flagged thousands of spammers on this forum as in bitcoin discussions as well as altcoin discussions. It might be appropriate to tag it as neutral which could serve as a warning to certain managers to be more careful about hiring them, but it's best to report a user's post for deletion and let a moderator judge it.

For other considerations, I agree that each topic should be moderated by the OP to discourage spammers. But since not many OPs do, I think we still have a chance to contribute to the forum by reporting the spam post to a moderator.

By the way, I'm no longer reporting posts on gambling boards so far as it seems the mod doesn't think it's worth deleting even though I'm sure it's spam. There are 100+ of my reports on the gambling board that were not dealt with to this day, so maybe that's the reason I don't do it anymore.

I'm not sure "No editing" would solve the problem because many innocent users who only edited their posts for grammar or quoting errors would still be subject to this rule; one can't tell the goat from the sheep.

I'll post the list for future reference for managers who find it useful. ^{I just edited my post for grammar error.}

I would be ok with it , but I'm not sure you would be setting the right precedent by tagging the user in question. I think a logical solution might be to make a rule in campaigns(this would depend on if the manager wanted extra work) no edited posts are eligible for pay.

That rule IMO fixes the problem.

Due to the high demand for posts from that board by most signature campaigns, there have been so many shitposters on the gambling board recently that I wish every thread OP made it self-moderated just like JollyGood did here⚽ English Premier League Season: 2021/2022 There is no room for 1xbit spammers, shitposters, or trolls; only quality discussion.

I've compiled a list of 20+ gambling board shitposters who add nothing to the discussion; I've reported the majority of these posts, but I don't think it's enough! Will a negative neutral tag with a strong message suffice?

Edit

I'm even pretty sure he's still at it on June 13 based on a post archive where he just cites a number of posts without adding anything and comes back to edit them after a few hours or maybe a different day. I think this kind of behavior is not tolerated as right behavior in the campaign, he wants payment but not doing things the right way.

The campaign manager is responsible for checking this kind of behavior, and I think he will do it more strictly now for all his participants.

I'm sure it's not the first time, given that there are so many members registered who participate in campaigns and bounties (and who are lazy and/or unethical).  I thought I'd seen it all, but honestly I don't recall seeing anyone else pull this particular brand of crapola before.

I hadn't noticed the user in question doing what he did because I think he posts mainly in the gambling section (correct me if I'm wrong; I'm too lazy to check), which I stay away from unless I'm doing post reviews for people.

Good eyes on this one, OP, and you did the right thing by calling attention to AndySt and his tactics.

It would be odd if we would have lots of people doing high quality posts.
I am not saying that all the others (those not getting the prize) are spammers or low quality posts but we have a 4 guys team working weekly just to rate everyone posts. We have since people with 0 knowledge about gambling & sportbook (literally 0 as he joined it less than 2 weeks ago) but we also have people thats inside this world for over 7 years. Everyone rate every campaign member posts, every week, and link what they believe was the best post of them for that week.. after that we pick the average from these 4 rating to select those with the highest scores to win the prize. Same happens with those with the lowest rating.. once they reach a 5.5 average, I do talk to them myself but if they quality wont change in a week or two, we are replacing that person, as simple as that. But thats not the topic here & I would be glad to reply to any of your doubts in our campaign thread.


About the report made by Solosanz, we have someone checking it and you can have no doubt that no matter if AndySt provides good posts quality to the forum or not, rules are rules and no matter who you are or how good your posts are.

The saddest thing here is that he is pushing himself this hard for a campaign that is paying per post. For example, if he makes one less post then he would lose 2-3 dollars the most. I would grant him right if he was in a campaign like Roobet. Because you can't get any payment there if you make 19 posts instead of 20. By the way, has there been anyone who checked out the Stake.com campaign spreadsheet? The same people are getting the best posters prize every week. Don't you think it is odd?

I remember that I saw such cases few times, but I'm not sure that it was AndySt. But I think it was sentence or two, rather than just word "Yes". I even replied to one of such posts and later I noticed that this post was edited. So, my quote looked strange when minds in edited post were far from original one.
It's strange behaviour and it would be interesting to hear position from @AndySt. It wouldn't be something very bad if he wouldn't wear paid signature. In this way of posting advertisers don't get results what they wanted.

You really don't know answer? It's money, what is big factor to force yourself to post, even if you don't have time for it.

In my opinion, i think we have to leave the campaign out of it all, it is the misdemeanor of the user, the campaign is just running their business in the best way they can by including some bonuses for more posts, they have not implored their parricipants to spam, and i am pretty sure there are participants on the campaign who post as much as they can without doing something that this very user was caught doing. Chipmixer pays for up to 50 posts per week, but it does not bring any spam whatsoever to the forum. People are responsible for their actions and not the campaign they are on.

Having said that, the last case that was similar to this one was handled shrewdly by Carollzinha who is the manager of the campaign, which goes to show that they do not tolerate spam or behaviours such as this.

The Stake has a new campaign thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/openstakecom-new-sign-campaign-l-up-to-160week-l-30-hero-leg-spots-open-5400828

I have already mentioned that some of rules stimulate forum spamming
AndySt seems to have gladly accepted that rule

If you do it once in a while maybe because you're out with your family and had a few minutes to browse the forum and you see something you want to comment on when you get back home might be ok. Doing it all the time kinda makes me feel like it would be due to the owner being a part of a large farm. They go 1 word comment on a bunch of posts and fill in the blanks later.

Good catch here OP. I would like to hear a response from Andyst

I don't know what made @AndySt have this habit, but of course this might have something to do with his inconsistent free time on the forum. I don't know why someone would force themselves to stay active posting and receive payments from certain campaigns if they don't have enough time to be active as expected. This will only raise questions and other unforeseen problems, but of course @AndySt has reasons for doing so.

Now I think @AndySt will have the same consequences as in one of the other cases a while back. The important thing is this will be a good lesson for him and the others.

Such behavior is demonstrated in booking tickets for seats at the cinema. before he makes a post, he marks the place he wants to comment.
I don't know if that would violate forum rules. but after that, he edited the post although sometimes he edited it the next day.
if you want to report spam, maybe an unedited post. but for an edited post, I don't think it will prove anything. the manager may also consider the OP for the behavior @AndySt is showing.

I think you should also contact @AndySt. this can be a warning or a lesson to him about his behavior.

Ah yes, that's the case I was referring to as I remembered I saw similar case before.


Hm I am not so sure about it, as chaser15 has a long history of activity in Phillipines local thread, while AndySt never wrote there and the only local board he was active was the Russian. The only similarity that I can see  is that they were both of part of the Stake campaign when caught doing this.

Yes, you are right, I remembered a similar story.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/chaser15-abusing-the-rules-of-campaign-5395403

I'm starting to think it's the same alternative account. And the OP found it too.

Probably this behavior is becoming popular, but as we understand from the past history, managers do not approve of this. Not quite decent from AndySt.

Yeah that's probably the reason he is doing this, and its not the first one who did something like this in order to meet signature campaign rules. What I am more surprised it that no one reported these type of posts where he would quote someone and wrote only "yes" and sometimes not even that.