Topic: [Interest Check] - User Rank 'Banned' - page 4. (Read 6047 times)

Seeing as you suggested similar things in the past, you're generally in favor of this, right?
I would hence asume that your label as "bad idea" comes from being blocked with it in the past by BadBear.
That shouldn't keep you from supporting it now and giving things another shot.

What makes you think that this idea would be any good?

There would, as there are not that many campaigns for newbies. If the campaign model changed to accommodate newbies, we'd likely see a new flood of spammers.

You say that it is bad, but do not elaborate why? I'm aware that BadBear shot it down, read the thread. Theymos is likely willing to implement it, if there is demand/support for it. I've made this thread after already discussing this with them.

Bad idea, I suggested this few months ago (maybe more than 1 year ago) and BadBear said it was a bad idea :/. I don't remember why, maybe privacy reason... at the end only the user that is banned must decide to reveal to the others his 'ban status'.

Let's think out of the box: wouldn't it be nice if Bitcointalk auctions accounts instead of giving them a permanent ban? I know it's not likely to happen, but it would undermine the business model of account farmers/spammers, as it lowers the selling price.
Or, one step back, farming is caused by the account level system. I know this too has to be the way it is, but if a newbie could instantly have a big signature, there would be no reason to farm accounts for activity.

1. so what? if the rule you mentioned in point 2 is effectively enforced (by the sig campaign owner) then doesn't that force a satisfactory level of quality?
2. that's the risk of account "farming" and always has been.
3. again, who cares. if the owner of the promotion wants to strictly enforce the rule nothing is stopping them.
4. if thats the case, make the thread self moderated. that function is there for a reason.
5. that is a very bland response. if the user does their research or uses an ESCROW like there are so many on this forum, then they wont get scammed

1: It's wrong when you know for what purpose they are being used. Especially when they will be enrolled into signature campaigns along side the other accounts the buyer has. There is no way that you can maintain a decent level of quality throughout all accounts if there are plenty.

2: Signature campaigns have very clear rules when it comes to participants - 1 account per person. If you are busted with several accounts, they'll ban you from the campaign and deny you payment.

3: It does actually matter. It's much better to have 100 different people get something rather than 10 people getting everything.

4: This is of course arguable, but there are entire armies of these shills derailing threads, trying to spread fud in an attempt to take down a certain service, and the list goes on.

5: Rare or not, every scam attempt is one too many.

It doesn't destroy a healthy economy at all. It helps protecting a healthy economy stay healthy.

dont make assumptions. if that was the case my trust rating would be full of valid negative feedback. it's not about that, it's about it being nothing more than a pointless feature that only contributes to this forum by allowing nazi's to brag about their ass licking. not like that doesn't happen here enough.

We're far from a point of it being healty to the forum in any way.
That being said, what has this to do with the original suggestion brought up in OP?

So how exactly does this damage the "healthy" (account sale) economy if we only tag permanently banned accounts? Do you sell permanently banned accounts under the premise that they're not banned or something  

1. Selling them when they have enough activity = nothing wrong with this?
2. Isn't that the point of sig campaigns? So that they are advertising the product in their signature? Farmed account or not, they assist that economy.
3. who cares. giveaways are a joke anyway. if people want to waste their time making 100 accounts for 0.0001 giveaways good luck, they will get caught.
4. Seriously... this is a reason why this economy should be destroyed? because of trolling and shilling? like i said earlier if rules are being broken they will be banned anyway
5. this is rare, the trust system is there for a reason. but it is not there for people to abuse it if the account is purchased or not. no one is guilty until proven so.

these are such ridiculous reasons to destroy a healthy economy on bitcointalk, and to add a "banned" rank just to encourage the already huge egos of these wannabe moderators.

as I said above, it will do nothing but inflate the egos of these low esteemed wannabe mods. it's completely pointless. it serves no purpose other than that. i bet as soon as it is added it wont be long before people like The Pharmacist make threads or posts mentioning how many people they think they got "banned" and all of a sudden it will turn into a contest on who can get the most members banned. getting people banned should be because they have done something wrong, mods deal with it, end of story. not show a public ban tag, inflating their ego further, and then bragging about it around the forum.

Please. There are zero (at least obvious) cons to this idea. Even if it were not that beneficial (which I would argue that it is going to be; rizzarolla is free to explain this further), implementing it is not hard and it does no harm.

I've yet to see an account farmer that is not shitposting, talking to each other among their accounts (which is implicitly against the rule as it is spam) and such. That said, if you are not doing anything wrong, this change does not affect you.

There is no need to farm accounts when you are here just to read and take part into certain discussions.

Purposes of account farmers :

Selling them when they have enough activity.
Enrolling them in signature campaigns.
Farming giveaways.
Trolling and shilling.
In some cases even scamming.

All above is pure negativity. Nearly all with the intention to squeeze out every penny of this forum.

Having a few (2 or max 3) alt accounts is not much wrong with, but why would a regular person have hundreds of accounts in some cases? Financial benefit.

Many farmers are barely above shitposts. They dont really contribute to a discussion, they dont help other users. They post an opinion or a copied paragraph every now and then until the account is old enough for sale. Even though there is no clear rule against account farmers, they often get banned because they are unable to keep the quality high enough. A single account with a few posts might be just someone that posts like that, if you have 100 accounts dont expect mercy.

you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem?

It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts.
Don't be surprised that some others do care, though.

People caring are the worst.

it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.

I'll be happy if we get it only for permanent bans, if we get it for both then it is even better.

You mean that the rank itself should be a hyperlink to the forum rules? Interesting suggestion! I'll bring this up as well (in case that theymos is not reading this thread).

This would actually be very useful internally, since most of the time I'm left guessing whether someone has been banned before or not.

Thank you for all of your suggestions (I've snipped the post so that it takes up less space). I'll surely discuss them with the admin.

Unfortunately this has already happen to a good extend. Decent users are posting less and less due to garbage content & input from spammers, which in return leads to them slowly visiting the forum less frequently..

So, you are mad because they care? Interesting. If what you say is true, that none of the admins care about users abusing the forum, there will be no forum long term, because every decent person left and the spammers among eachother will just fill a database.

LAUDA AND  RIZZAROLLA ACTING  LIKE  ADMINS, BETTER  YOU CREATE  YOUR  OWN  FORUM  RATHER THAN  IMPLEMENTING THOSE  BULLSHIT  SUGGESTIONS, TRUE ADMINS DOESNT  CARE  ABOUT THIS PRESENT  ISSUES  , ONLY THE BOTH  OF YOU ARE  JUST TRYING  HARD  AND  JUST SHOWING  ACTS THAT EVERYBODY HATES, IF I WERE   YOU,jUST FUCK  YOURSELVES  BOTH

I support the original idea for both temporary bans as well as permanent bans.

Throwing out some suggestions:

1. When a forum name displays the "BANNED"/"TEMP BANNED" user rank, make the rank a link
that goes to the forum rules. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657
Many times I have seen noobies complain they didn't know the rules nor ever see them, especially
after they have been banned. This addition would help diminish that argument further as well as
help guide other users to the thread when they see that a member has a "BANNED" marking by
chance within normal thread browsing.

2. What about having a ban counter (obviously for temp bans)?
So for example, if you have been banned once before, you will receive a "1" in some section within
your profile, but not displayed in the normal thread displays. That way Signature Campaign Admins
could institute policies or auto scripts that drop or don't include users with 1 or 2 bans within their
campaigns. This may create a shaming by having ban numbers and cause sig spammer to "attempt"
not to spam as much, especially after their account is flagged with a "2". It may reduce spamming.

3. Make the user rank of "BANNED"/"TEMP BANNED" a different color, like Red or Orange.

Just throwing these out there. I have no idea what it would take to code #2 and whether it would
even be helpful in any worthwhile way.