Topic: Leave negative feedback for Yobit spamming? (Read 1161 times)

<...>Admin solved it with helps from DdmrDdmr (maybe).<...>

The problem here is, theymos is making money from their activity.
If we ban every shitposter there is and scare people away, there would be 50 active users left in the forum posting relevant stuff.
This is nothing new anyway. I remember it was exactly the same in 2014 and I know it will be exactly same 5 years later. Just leave it to the mods.
Also:
[img width:100]https://i.ibb.co/CJxNd7w/dder.png[/img]
It doesn't look good already. Banning yobit sigs will definitely not make it better.

129 users who were wearing a yobit signature and had at least 1 good report against them in the last 14 days are banned for 14 days. All yobit signatures are wiped. Signatures containing "yobit.net" are banned for 60 days.

Some people were talking about neg-trusting spammers for spamming. This is not appropriate; report the posts, and if that doesn't seem to be working well, come to Meta with specific examples and suggestions.

Its better to leave spamming issues for moderators where mods will take their decission to take appropriate actions against them. Reporting to moderators is our responsibility if we find spammers activity on forum. So I think same things will be fair for yobit too.

Unlike you, mr. Pajeet, I am not required to make a single post. Double-standards only if you're a shitposting baboon with limited eye sight brain power.

Lauda, I am agree with you.

Would you also tell us your arguments without wearing the Fortune Jack Signature ?  

[Double Standards]

Which is fallacious stance. Banning all of YoBit ADs does not touch the 'freedom to say anything'. You can say everything you want to without their signature.

When newbies found spamming then they will be nuked by mods,but if they atleast reached Jr.Rank or above then nuke is not possible they might get temporary or perma ban as punishment.

First offence: 7 days
Second offence: 14 days
Third offence: 30 days
Fourth: Permanent ban

All campaigns that require a certain amount of post each week could be seen as adding more spam  to this forum, Yobit campaign is paying people without the need to reach a certain amount of posts how great is that. They also never said that you should post the max amount of post they are willing to pay and when Yobit did announce the relaunch of the signature they directly added some extra rules to this campaign so they did thought about the problems from the last signature campaign.

It's never good to judge about a whole group of people when some individuals are the main problem, in each campaign you will find rotten apples and if people go to far you have always the forum mods and staff that can kick/block people from joining a specific campaign.



https://yobit.io/en/signature/details/
★☆★ Rules ★☆★

Poor quality and unconstructive posts will not be tolerated on this campaign. You don't need to write an essay with each post but one word replies in spammy off topic threads or streams of constant half-assed one liners will immediately get you removed. Please just put some effort in to your posts and you'll be fine.

Users with negative feedback from defaulttrust members are no longer permitted on the campaign. If you sign up you will be removed.

Any user who hasn't made a post in over a month will also be removed.

I don't think spamming will result in nuking accounts? I have never read such rule on nuking accounts due to spamming. Maybe I missed it. So, can you point it out if there is really a rule on nuking accounts due to spamming, please. 

I don't think spamming will result in nuking accounts? I have never read such rule on nuking accounts due to spamming. Maybe I missed it. So, can you point it out if there is really a rule on nuking accounts due to spamming, please. 

Instead of leaving Negative Feedback, Forum Spammers should just be nuked and banned.

I think I've voiced my opinion enough times on this matter, so I won't get into my opinion about whether their new campaign is a good idea or good for the forum.  Well, at least not extensively.

But I've always said I missed Yobit's campaign after I quit it and when it subsequently ended.  As far as signature campaigns go, it was fantastic and was the first one I ever joined after being a member here for about 9 months if I recall correctly.  There were never any problems with payouts, and you didn't have to wait a week to get paid--they pay out within hours.  The only lousy thing about it was that your payment went directly into your Yobit account, which you were obliged to have, and if you wanted to withdraw your funds there was a fee.  I recall it being pretty steep and I often converted bitcoin into an altcoin that had a lower withdrawal fee.

Yobit's bitcointalk account is painted red, and I'm sure it deserves it, but I just can't wrap my head around Yobit being a scam exchange overall.  For me they've always done everything I've expected of them.  Every trade I've done was without issue and I never had any trouble withdrawing my funds. 

That said, I don't doubt others who say they've had trouble with Yobit.  I think the major problem with them is their customer service.  They just don't resolve issues quickly or at all.  I think of Yobit as more of an exchange that's run very poorly but one that isn't truly a scam service.

Anyway, we'll see how this all plays out.  I'm definitely noticing a lot of shitposting by members wearing the Yobit sig, and that's not good.

The forum has a net-gain with paid signatures being allowed (spam is an 'acceptable consequence' of it). Removing signatures means a decent part of the forum's activity drops as "only-here-for-the-pay" members leave. We should try it though.

No-sig September, anyone?

The forum has a net-gain with paid signatures being allowed (spam is an 'acceptable consequence' of it). Removing signatures means a decent part of the forum's activity drops as "only-here-for-the-pay" members leave.

386 participants prior to the Yobit campaign used to create ~230 posts per day combined. They created ~3600 posts within the last 24 hours. That's a 15-fold increase, or 3000+ extra posts per day. I think it's safe to assume that most of those are shit.

if you do that,why wouldnt you remove signatures instead for more convenience? simple as that.

Also:

Google trends







If the price of bitcoin will increase, the word bitcoin will go up on google trends and the traffic of bitcointalk will increase again, it's all related.

To be fair banning their signatures will be a little bit unethical from this forum because it automatically means theymos and whole administration rejects yobit service and let other scam services to run here.

Which is fallacious stance. Banning all of YoBit ADs does not touch the 'freedom to say anything'. You can say everything you want to without their signature.

I agree we need a heavy handed approach here, but I don't think it has anything to do with laziness. If theymos wanted to ban the YoBit campaign and their spammers, I'm sure he would do so. It's more an issue of how far you let individual users' freedom to say what they want (including spamming) encroach on everyone else's ability to actually use the forum.

If it were down to me, I would immediately hand out a 7 day ban to the majority of the YoBit spammers, and disable all signatures which mention YoBit for 7 days. Obviously theymos disagrees.

but theymos is too lazy

All campaigns that require a certain amount of post each week could be seen as adding more spam  to this forum, Yobit campaign is paying people without the need to reach a certain amount of posts how great is that. They also never said that you should post the max amount of post they are willing to pay and when Yobit did announce the relaunch of the signature they directly added some extra rules to this campaign so they did thought about the problems from the last signature campaign.

User tagged by DT getting paid for his posts.^

Link to your twitter account: https://twitter.com/rhnyy
Link to your tweet: https://twitter.com/rhnyy/status/896398651408343043
Number of real followers as audited on twitteraudit: 308
BTC Address: 3JSWQBjvexhdR6NqeRZXtDcpLMiQcP7GZK

Join Form:  Signature campaign
Bitcointalk username: shimbark123
Account URL: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/shimbark123-1009626
Rank: Full Member
Starting post Count: 394
Date of Join: December 02, 2017
Bitcoin address: 3JSWQBjvexhdR6NqeRZXtDcpLMiQcP7GZK

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.

If you find spammers just use Report to Moderator button which is the right thing if we want to clear spams.If we tag spammers then most of the bounty participants were spammers so we are going to tag them all?

It updates every 3-4 hours but sometimes it might took 5 hours. For me, it updates 4 hrs and 30 minutes to 5 hours. But, still it updates you just need to wait.

Do you think it is justifiable to leave negative feedback for spamming in the Yobit campaign (and other campaigns alike) to render them useless for future spam?[/b]

Tagging people for spamming is not what theymos wasts DT members to do. Whoever wants to do so is free to do that keeping their DT status at risk.

Obviously the posts can be reported and left to be judged by the Bitcointalk moderators but there is no way to can amount of spam we've seen over the past few days (and I suspect it will only get worse).

So my question is: Do you think it is justifiable to leave negative feedback for spamming in the Yobit campaign (and other campaigns alike) to render them useless for future spam? Obviously, a simple slip up is completely forgivable. I'm talking about the obvious spammers/account farmers.

Poor quality and unconstructive posts will not be tolerated on this campaign. You don't need to write an essay with each post but one word replies in spammy off topic threads or streams of constant half-assed one liners will immediately get you removed. Please just put some effort in to your posts and you'll be fine.

Users with negative feedback from defaulttrust members are no longer permitted on the campaign. If you sign up you will be removed.

No. Trust is for things that aren't handled by forum rules, such as promoting a scam exchange or Ponzi.

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!".
[...]
- Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
- It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them.

1. No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads. [1][e]

2. No off-topic posts.

9. Discussions in the main boards must be in english. All other language discussions should be posted in the appropriate Local board (posts using Google translate, turning their posts into nonsensical word spaghetti).

12. No duplicate posting in multiple boards (except for re-posting it in the local language boards if it's translated).

21. Old bumps should be deleted. [2]

25. Ban evasion (using or creating accounts while one of your accounts is banned) is not allowed.[e]

27. Using automated translation tools to post translated content in Local boards is not allowed.

33. Posting plagiarized content is not allowed.[e]

---