Topic: Has theymos ever banned any signature campaign due to spam? (Read 421 times)

Yunno when everyone else in the room becomes uncomfortable for a displeasing attitude of yours and, you don't give a shit ?! That's it!  

Borovichok was thrown under the bus and even when their cover was blown, Somehow, they still managed to cling on. I'm not gonna say that literally everyone in there is a spammer since we recently had a few knowledgeable people join them last month, but that again is way less.
Do people really care about quality now a days? Just a few.i could even list them if I have to..and yunno what? They're seeing results which is why they don't plan on changing anything.

If I remember correctly, the Yobit campaign (at least this is their last campaign on this forum) was not banned because of spam, but because it was a promotion of their scam investment scheme. Promotion of a non-existent (Yobit) Dollar token. First, they were forced to change text into signatures, only to be completely banned after a while


And a negative campaign is still a campaign. One spammer unintentionally caused drama and discussion about him and the Stake campaign as well as Stake casino in general. Whatever we think, Stake is a hot topic these days on Bitcointalk.
Was it worth it, it certainly was. The Stake is generous, they don't even insist on quality. What would they do if they started to spend their obviously rich budget with more quality.

I don't think Stake cares. It's not like they don't have the money to invest in a quality campaign manger, up the payrates, and get some of the best forum members onboard. All that would result in more quality over quantity. Because I don't think they care, their main goal is to just have the signature and their brand appear as often as possible, regardless of the quality of the posts. That's working.

Maybe you need sleep more than me.
I didn't hire spammers for anything, and I don't try to spin up anything.
It seems to me that you are trying to put things under the carpet because you are a part of the same campaign as QueenVera was, but I could be wrong.
Best of luck.

You need to sleep or something, your goal shouldn't be to spin up drama.

Yes I have hired spammers. I've given 2nd chances to someone with a somewhat crap history and even sent a warning to them prior to hiring them. Then you have users you don't know or feel were spammers but they soon show they are and get themselves on the blacklist. I even overseen the yobit campaign and fired hundreds of spammers cleaning this forum up.

You really think you, me and other who like to label "us" to others that we do not spam? More or less all of us spam in the forum.

Let the signature campaigns ban from the forum, I don't think many of these "us" will care to post in the forum. We post because we need to earn merit to rank up [once have the highest rank we still continue because we need to separate us from others], we suck others ass [like GazetaBitcoin sucks all of ours dick and buttocks to protect icopress] because we need to be in the DT. All these earn a good character for us and good character means better chance to be in a campaign, better chance to receive high payment, better chance to make a business in the forum.

When was the last time you did not felt that you are short to fill up your weekly target. You logged in and made some posts not because you felt to involve in a discussion but because you need to complete your target. You can make a thousand words article but you still is a spammer because you did not post to serve your mental desire but to serve the needs to get paid.

I don’t think anyone would advertise a service that is against forum policy and not get temp ban at list. A fee have gotten this in the past for free giveaways, consenting to participate by application and participation. I think it would be very much applicable should any manager come up with a mixer. So, it ain’t really about the services here but, the participants and patterns to management.

One thing remains true though, when you’re brought to the scale or your participants so many times, it becomes a spoken truth that there is something there and should be looked up.

Easy man, lol… am sure you understand Yahoo62278 to mean it quite differently.
Managers have got the criteria to look out for in selections and times of the opener of a campaign, a few accounts increasingly becomes active, a few wakeups and all. You find them active and having turn overs of posts with some considerable quality but, once accepted, their true nature emerges.

As well as having to report these posts, a few managers have come up with the report to manager format for close observation, removal, blacklist and tagging of these users.

I think Yahoo62278 implemented a one merit earn per week qualification for users to retain spot in his campaign. As users whom tends to earn merits are more likely to be good posters. A few spammers might have their ways around this but, it’s where the rest of the forum comes in.

Especially, when you’ve got multitudes to manage and a high posts work load to evaluate, managers becomes a little sloppy on the job I think. Hence, having a minimal range of posts per week would make for efficient reviews too.

It’s said that, one who makes a lot of posts per day by weeks is more likely to spam than those that posts very little. This comes to play mainly when you’re posting to meet up with the set quota.

Yahoo62278 has managed many campaigns in the past and we know that he is a good campaign manager. I think he meant that many campaign managers have hired spammers in the past. Many of the spammers were known and tagged. Some even plagiarized and got banned. Some people were actually good posters before but you will notice all of a sudden that they are spamming.

I do not know the level of spam in gambling board (because I ignore it,) but some solutions are useful, such as:

 - Prepare an ignore list and ask members to add those accounts to that ignore list.
 - Report any spamming account, and collect them in one topic.
 - If you get good spam reports from most members, then sig will be banned for breaking the forum rules.

Something like AI Spam Report Reference will give good and fast results.

Neither do I but it can happen if the spam gets increased over time.

I wanted to show them what can happen for not managing a campaign properly but people took this into a different discussion.

They've gotten away with spamming for years, and it has been a lot worse than it is now. So I don't expect any action to be taken against them.

If there is an overwhelming number of spamming in stake campaigns, will theymos still give them a pass? I wanted to show stake what such a campaign can cause to them, their reputation. Anyway, that's something else we are getting directed now.

So, is it correct to take it as a reference, especially since the campaign has returned and continued?

Something I appreciate you for the fee I do read from you, how you state your truth and make it look simple. Even when some would hope you wouldn’t accept the obvious since all that could be needed is just a statement but, that too could be discredited by the other party who holds the other end of the whip.

So, the maybe and the No, does go.

The light in which this is coming might not be so bright but as I see it, it was an open end discussion but, with the forum been a box full of intellects, dots would be connected, inferences would be made and some positive relativism would be generated as well as some negations. All you could do is accept what you will and clear up on the negations.

It’s largely what shouldn’t be as, it would confine what is acceptable, don’t give room for creativity and this could apply in a wide range too. Just a matter of getting few piece to make sense, a foe to case to case judgements.

This remains a strategy come up with campaign managers that ought to work, especially when the evidence is overwhelming but, I don’t know what the responses are like though, I’ve seen some managers action reports as they are received. I wouldn’t name names but yeah, it’s a nice way to handle spam and spammers too, even as you report them posts to moderators.

There was a 60-day temporary ban for any signature containing yobit.net link.

yobit.net was an exceptional case because they did not care about who was accepted or the quality of the posts, but they were not banned, as the campaign continued to advertise even after those accounts were banned.

@theymos Post time April 22, 2019
Yobit.net signature campaign September 27, 2019




The best thing that can be done is to contact the campaign manager. If there is no manager, they should appoint a new one.

That's literally the big picture you were painting but since you have said "peace and no war " I think I will hold my horses here.

Come on yahoo, people who knows me well would never think that I'm thinking of getting stake sig banned lol. I have prepared a proposal which I sent to stake.com, I used yobit as an example. I don't have time to look for specific user and report their post. I only report posts which I read while participating in a discussion.



Am I desperate to take a job with stake? Maybe, yes.
Do I want to penalize the whole campaign? No, I have attached a proof.

I want peace, not a war, dude. I didn't even directly propose myself to takeover the job. I proposed them a mutual team work which would benefit them for getting a better quality participants. I know I dont owe these explanation but as I told, I want peace not war.

I try my best to filter out the spammer. Now, if we summarize who is spammer and who isn't then we will come up with a huge number but you know there's a tolerate level or minimum standard in the forum and I try to ensure the minimum standard of the forum. Feel free to report any spammer in my campaign. My DM is always open for such kind of well wisher. I'll gladly take all the suggestion and try to act accordingly if the suggestion makes sense.


Edit- Quite strange how everyone summarize that I wanted to get stake sig a ban lol.

Spammers should be reported. Maybe someone can keep a list of these spammers in a thread. The campaign manager's attention should be called to it. Unrepentant spammers should be removed from whatever campaign they are in. If no step is taken from the managers after calling their attention to it, then the forum's administration should step in and do what is best. There should be some rules about it. If there is none then one has to be written.

Good question.
It is not always company advertising some service that should be blamed for spamming in forum, in some cases campaign managers should be temp-banned for accepting and keeping spammers in their campaigns.
They are not only hurting service they are working with them but they are making all other bitcointalk forum members look bad.

So you are admitting of hiring spammers in campaigns and you think this is ok