Topic: Make restrictions for juniors members (Read 482 times)

It could be good point no matter that im jr member but this is good proposal. Probably it will be good but mostly bounty campaigns dont look that much cuz they pay in tokens. The worst part here is that mainly is post restriction on 99% of bounties and only 1% of them give on unlimited post count. On top of this believe that they dont care if the post is spam or not. They just want to bee see on all parts of the forum. Sadly for that. Im trying to get every possible info and possible some tips on getting merit and its not just post 300 words to be quality post sometimes one word can be good with topic related thing off course.

Well, bounty manager should be informed regarding this issue but i think they knew it at the very beginning that spamming is a serious problem. We should also implement a requirements for managing an ICO here. Some people create new accounts for the promotion of their own project, we didn't know if it's a scam and many of them don't really care about the rules. Bounty managers might accept Jr. Members or maybe Newbies and encourage them to do shitposting just for the promotion of the project. They should be at least Full Members or be a Copper Member to increase the credibility of being a manager.

#JrMembers5MeritRequirements

Yes I agree with op junior members are newbies with 4 weeks, is not hard for someone take an advantage from this, joining bounties with bots ad 100+ accounts.

Lol. How naive you are. One user was caught with over 200 accounts spamming away regurgitating the same response re-worded ever so slightly post after post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-to-do-if-you-blocked-the-accounts-of-the-whole-office-1912475

This will also only be the tip of the shitberg. There are people farming accounts with bots in their hundreds and likely possibly thousands, but the ones caught are never looked into so staff have to keep playing whack a mole with ghosts.


The trouble is is you can't make bounty managers do this, so their hand needs to essentially be forced. Get rid of signatures for Juniors or at the least require some sort of merit achievement to become one. That would help drastically and then ICO campaigns would no longer be able to accept the bots and the worst of the worst to spam whatever they wanted. Punishments also need to happen for campaigns who do nothing but pay people to spam or copy and paste. Those two simple solutions would help drastically. 

What!? Is this real? Well, if this type of users do really exist then there's a big possibility that only 2 to 3 of their total accounts run in a good condition because maintaining 10 accounts would be definitely a hard task. Yeah! More accounts means more chances of having multiple sig campaigns but the probability of getting all hired also decreases because of the quality requirement. So for me, having too much accounts is not an efficient way to gain more profits.
Indeed. Mods can't do this alone, campaign managers should also help them to fight the spammy and shitty posters (particularly the low ranked ones) by requiring the forum members to meet first the merit requirement  before applying so that all of the applicants are even more filtered and only the good ones could enter the campaign. A win to win situation after all — it will result to a healthy ICO advertisement and the crappy posters are now easy to eradicate at the same time since they now feel demotivated.

If only theymos would try to give some permissions to his staffs to handle this try outs. And if there's a good result , they'll eventually implement it in no time.

We have more trusted persons here to conduct this options and to make sure that it will lead to an adequate solution for the community.

We've got loads of options and we discuss them endlessly. The problem is none of them has been tried.

I don't agree with this reasoning and it's not an excuse to not do it. People can just buy an account as well, but you're missing the point. If someone can go to the trouble of buying however many merits they need then good. It's better than allowing anyone and everyone with zero knowledge of bitcoin to join a signature campaign. At least they've proved they've got the initiative and the knowledge to be able to make a bitcoin transaction or seek out the merit in whatever way they acquired it. Most users who come here don't know the first thing about bitcoin. They just come here to collect bounties and they use websites like coins.ph to cash out straight away. I've literally seen numerous beggars sign up here just to post their bitcoin 'address' and it is in fact their blockchain.info wallet identifier. Some people will buy merit, but most will just try earn it especially those who have no bitcoin or money to buy them. Many users trying to buy merit will just get scammed as well. This is about curbing all those users who come here in their thousands just to have dozens of accounts each to shitpost from. Do you think they're going to be able to afford to buy merit for their dozens of alts? Probably not, but if you can; fair enough. Don't forget about bots as well. Campaigns are literally paying bots to copy and paste. This can't be acceptable. Bots likely wont get the merit. This is all about restricting as many users as we can regardless of if you can bend or break the rules to do so which you can always do with any rule or law, but it's about minimising abuse and policing those who do break them and requiring a small amount of merit to have a signature would go a long way.  

I believe it would do wonders towards reducing spamming, although bots are another related front that would perhaps try to grow even more to gain merits by sophisticating post content in search fooling us into stray awarding them merits (at the cost of automation sophistication but not human time invested per account).

Of course for the (gained) merit requirement to work, if added as a requirement for Jr. Ranks as suggested in the thread title, it goes without saying that one would hope that campaign managers would not lower their requirements and accept Newbies based on activity or nothing at all, in order to comply with their quotas of enrolment.

The lateral effect of requiring earned merit as a requirement for Jr. Members (or Campaigns as a general norm), is that the pool of candidates would be reduced drastically (see re:Disable signatures/bounties til a user reaches full member status), baring not nearly enough signatories for all the current active campaigns. This could go one of many ways after that, ranging from a higher degree of value for merited accounts, to campaigns moving away for not getting enough marketing attention through signatures.

I guess that this is the real keystone to consider from the forum’s (theymos’s) perspective. From the spam point of view, it would be a done deal for most of us (non-spammers implicit).

I am a junior member and I do bounty campaigns such as signature and other social media campaigns.I am willing to stop participating any campaigns if that will be implemented in this forum with no hate.If it is for the goodness of the forum why not.I rather spend my time reading lots of informative post to be more knowledgeable about bitcoin/cryptocurrency rather than spending time in participating bounties that is useless because it only takes time to learn more about crypto plus the fact that most ICO are fraud.I need to learn first to know everything and to be prepared on what and how to do to make a living.So if the administrator will banned us junior or newbie its fine.Its time to focus on studying about bitcoin/cryptocurrency and thats the time that we newbies can contribute for the improvement of this forum.

Restrictions are likely the best option in the case of bounty campaigns, and the current spam problem that these things encourage. However, introducing a fair merit requirement might be more difficult that rounding it up to nice numbers such as 5. To be honest 1 merit point would likely reduce the amount of users spamming by a significant amount.

In addition to hilariousetc's reply, bounty managers are pretty wise as well, they know that they will only get few participants if they put at least 2 merit requirements and I don't think that bounty managers with agree with that. As we can see, they actually doesn't care about the posts quality of their participants because what important for them is their project is getting advertised the way they like.
So, even though theymos doesn't want to restrict Jr. Members, we still need to force to implement the "atleast 5 merits requirements to rank up to Jr. Member and also remove signature from Jr. Members" for the sake of Bitcointalk, or else things will get worse.

We're running out of options.

Few managers are not accepting Jr. Members. It's not possible to force all managers. If requirement small merit, do you think people can't buy small merit ? Because many corrupted member's here. Also out side of forum people's trading merit. We should think both , prevent merit abuse & spam. So better option disable signeture campaign.

You trouble is is that you can't get them to do this because most don't care about quality and spammers so that's why we need to force them to make changes. Removing signatures from Juniors is the only way to stop them from accepting them, or making a merit requirement to become a Junior. These simple things alone would clean the forum up drastically because it's becoming full of Junior-level spammers churning out on liners and they just create more and more accounts when they realise they're never going to move past Junior. Their hand needs to be forced here. I would be all for removing signatures up until Member level and that would mean you're never going to be able to earn until you've received ten merits and been here a couple of months which isn't unreasonable or a lot to ask.

I personally don't know if this can be a reason but you know why some of the campaigns accept jr.members even if we already know that most of this accounts are just spamming? Simply because it is a great strategy since they are gonna be paying less for this type of users while it can spread more of their product.

So just removing the signature i guess for this ranks are just still the best solution so other campaign will basically doesn't have a choice

I personally think that bounty managers should just implement a merit requirement into their campaigns, requiring Jr members to have at least 1-2 merit to participate. Realistically Theymos isn't likely to restrict Jr. members further otherwise he would have done it already, so the bounty managers need to be the ones to curb this crap.

I agree with you and the proposal.
10 and 50 merits for Junior member, and Member ranks, respectively.
And, start allowing Junior member can have actively hyperlink in their signature again is one of good alternative adjustments for the current ranking system.

i think the merit system has fixed this issue imo (maybe too well). The way I see it, it is hard enough as it is to rank up for the lower members without making it any harder.

1 merit is too easy. Best option regarding my opinion is adjust the merit system as following:
Rank   Required   activity              Required merit
Brand new     0                                 0
Newbie           1                                 0
Jr Member           30                                 10
Member           60                                 50
Full Member   120                                 100
Sr. Member   240                                 250
Hero Member   480                                 500

I think remove rank Jr.member is not stop farming, We should remove both Jr.Member and Member. Atleast Sr.member above to join campaign. And Bounty Pool for signature campaign should be down. The system, moderate, people should report the comments with low quality or plagiarism
I know some people in group are selling Jr.member rank and Member rank for cheap. They are farming alot of account.