Topic: [Proposal] Tackling the spam (Read 474 times)

As a counterpoint to your argument, I'd say that we've seen lots of evidence of members with alt accounts abusing bounties and signature campaigns, and many of those members have been tagged by me or some other DT member(s).  I didn't make that assertion with nothing to back it, and you've been on the forum long enough to have seen people getting busted for enrolling one or more alt accounts in a campaign/bounty.

And even if that wasn't the case, why not try to do a good job so that your chances of getting accepted into another campaign or bounty are higher?  If you're in a 3rd world country and can make more money participating in a sig campaign than you could with a full-time job in your area, don't you think you should put in some effort?  I don't think that's an outrageously high standard.

Yep, you're right about that--and I think the only problem with Yobit's last campaign was that they seemingly didn't have a cap on how many members they'd allow in, and the result was that there were well over 100 (if I recall correctly) members with varying post quality all trying to make the maximum number of posts per day, which also was a lot.  There isn't likely to be a campaign like that again....I hope.

Find a way to ferry those targeted users in your proposal into the port of rulebreakers.

Take for example #1 and its extension:

---

Well, that's on a thread-by-thread or post-by-post basis, whereas signature campaigns impact the entire forum and multiple posts at once. Too much for moderators to handle there: they can't possibly have that responsibility or else we've crossed the line. Unless another campaign gets to YoBit levels of spam, I doubt you'll see much restriction against signature campaigns (even if they are run by Newbies, red-trusted, no-escrow, shady platforms).

The rule of the majority (while respecting the rights of the minority) is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. I'm not sure we have that here.


A community this diverse will find it difficult to reach a consensus on any issue. At best, you can hope to get the approval of the majority, but you must also accept that the opposition may have a point of view as well.

The word “freedom” was written eight times in this page which makes me believe that there's some sort of apprehension in your perspective. I don't consider my solution excessive as I understand you see it that way.

What happens if those rules are demanded by the users and not by the admins (e.g., me)? No one twists one's arm to this proposal and thus, freedom of choice remains. I want to believe that this community operates more democratically rather than anarchically.

The proposal I made is a pain in the neck to the ones who ruin the meaningfulness in the discussions, not to those who want to actually discuss. I thought that we'd agree on the stringency of the bounties/signature campaigns and not on leaving the spammers untouched to supposedly retain this forum's freedom.

Fear of falling down the slippery slope doesn't mean that you can't have a staircase with handrails. If you're scared, just remember to have three points of contact.

You're kinda proving my point: in the real world, there's a very large area between the laws we currently have, and anarchy. I agree you need some basic rules, because I wouldn't like to engage in daily fights to see who's strongest. But politicians didn't stop there, and they're still continuously adding new laws. We have laws that make painting your house green illegal, which has nothing to do with preventing anarchy, it's just someone having power over someone else.
I find it quite scary how easily people ask for more laws and more government intervention for almost every aspect of life.
Bitcointalk is kinda the same: barely anyone would advocate less rules. To give an example:
Binance doesn't have a permit where I live, so it's illegal. Until now, I didn't even realize this rule exists, but it turns out I'm not allowed to link to Binance. Given the nature of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, soon "illegal" trading sites will be the only ones you can use anonymously. Rule 11 is the first one I'd like to see removed!

My freedom to hold a meaningful discussion is already impacted by spammers flooding every thread with trash. I'll absolutely defend anybody's right to express and discuss any opinion or viewpoint, but you actually have to discuss it, not just fire out some meaningless spam to hit a post quota.

The issue here is that if you are irresponsible with your bitcoin, hold it with a third party, save your seed phrase in your email, etc., then it doesn't impact on me in the slightest. If you are irresponsible with your forum account, signing up to scam bounties, churning out spam posts, etc., then it directly impacts on how well other people can use the forum for discussion.

And watch the spammers take over a different board instead.

You can read actmyname's explanation of why an ad-hoc solution isn't actually a solution a few posts up.

Just don't pay for posts in Bitcoin Discussion for an easy solution.

Exactly. Having rules does not necessarily imply restricting freedom of expression. As in the real world, rules and laws exist to prevent anarchy. If everyone were allowed to do what they want, this would be a very shitty place.

True, and having less rules on bitcointalk makes sense as it goes in the line with whole Bitcoin philosophy of self responsibility etc, just wanted to say that little adjustments wouldn't hurt that "freedom" feeling we have here (which I like a lot as in majority of other forums you can easily get banned just by having unpopular opinion).

I am not saying that what @BlackHatCoiner suggested is right approach either, but I definitely wouldn't mind (or felt oppressed) if forum is more strict when it comes to spam/shitposters. The same way I don't feel like having less freedom due plagiarism rule and I wouldn't want it to get lifted just so we can say that we are more free.

I have realized that those bounties who allow low quality posts, are themselves low quality to begin with. The participants and neither the manager would be getting much out of it.

If you ban a false scammer, that is not equivalent to banning a false campaign.

Since moderators already decide what is considered spam via reports, extending that to campaigns would widen the scope to include multiple users, as opposed to individual posts. In the past, some threads have been locked, showing that moderator discretion extends to threads worth of content, some of which may have a greater post count than what was produced by campaign posters in the same period.

---

Ad-hoc solutions of simply "moving spam" to another place don't work either and result in places like Investor-based games (99%+ spam to redirect ponzi threads), Serious discussion (dead board with TWO threads above 100 replies), Bounties, and Altcoin Discussion.

Imagine someone was shitting on your floor, and your solution was to tell them to shit in the tub instead. Or, maybe, you decide that you should go upstairs with your actual guests in a new, shoddily-built room. Then, when all their friends come along and increase their shitting output, at least you'll have some refuge from the horrible activity you can never prevent.

At a certain point, you're going to have to ask yourself: are these shit-covered walls worth it to prevent those very few people whom enjoy the smell of shit from being wrongly barred from your house? They have to be, right? After all, we need to maintain those people that are still willing to join the forum in its crumbling yet unfaltering state. Even if 95% of posts are spam or scams, our values are uncompromising.^*

---

I wouldn't change anything, though. Let's see how this experiment ends, after all.

---

Look at any bounty campaign and think about the minimum cost required, then think about what their minimum post requirements would be in response to that.

Did you read my example? Who do you consider the source of the problem; the one who faults the most? You can't really believe that it's the participant. Besides, we've seen that if we punish participants (by banning them), the spam remains uncontrollable. You aren't tackling spam with a report for each weirdo who decided to ruin this place's discussions from their different accounts.

You have to stop the person who incentivizes them.

The managers decide what's the “absolute minimum”, don't they?

Maybe. The main problem I have with "more rules" is that's it's usually going only in one direction, and there will always be people asking for even more rules. I've already seen KYC suggested several times. No doubt it would reduce the amount of spam (and it will for sure reduce the number of posts I make to zero too), but it won't make the forum a better place.
One of the reasons scamming is allowed, is because Admin doesn't want to decide what is or isn't a scam. Some cases are very clear, which would be easy to ban, but sometimes there's doubt. The same problem will arise if Mods have to decide which campaign is spamming.

Question here is whether more "freedom" means bitcointalk being a better place. For example, on some other forums that I am currently active I am free to plagiarize as much as I want without being banned (I will be ostracized and ridiculed though). Having more freedom in that regard doesn't make it a better place in my eyes, I like bitcointalk's firm stance on the issue.



I don't think that main cause (or even one of the main ones) of low quality posts is due sig campaigners maintaining several alts but because of simple reason: they are getting paid for those shitposts anyway so why would they change? So in the end, it's up to managers so sort that out. Then again, there are far more spots in signature campaigns than there are quality members and situation is not getting any better.

Bitcoin Discussion isn't a neglected section by any means; it's probably one of the most active on the forum--but unfortunately that's because of the problem we're discussing here, i.e., rampant shitposting.  It should be one of the most important ones, where great discussions happen and also one having stricter moderation, but that isn't the reality and it hasn't been for years.

This sentence does not compute.  And I read your theory about the responsibility for all the garbage that's in Bitcoin Discussion and I have to say I don't agree with that.  Is it true that most of the shitposting comes from members in sig campaigns or bounties?  Yep.  Is it the fault of campaign/bounty managers or the owners of them?  Somewhat, IMO, but the fact is that the aforementioned members are being incentivized to post, not to post crap.  They're the equivalent of lazy real-world workers who come to work and do the absolute minimum (or those who are utterly incompetent at their job).

These sig campaigners could take their time and write well thought-out posts, but they don't for whatever reason.  I suspect one of those reasons is that they have alt accounts enrolled in multiple campaigns/bounties and therefore can't spend time crafting decent posts.  So that puts the blame squarely on the individual, not the campaign itself.  And that's where I think most of it is deserved.

As it appears, you misunderstand my point. I am not advocating the abolition of individual liberties, but a more civilized community.
There are already defined forum rules? Yes. Should all community members follow the default forum rules? Yes?

I read this Benjamin Franklin quote recently:
This quote applies here too. As much as I hate spam, "online freedom" is becoming more and more scarce. And once it's gone, you won't easily get it back.

That is it. There must be someone who has authority to supervise and penalize campaign managers. And not just managers, but also organizers.
Is this going to introduce another layer of freedom restrictions and centralization to the forum? Definitely. However, I don't see any problem with that. We already have various rules that we are required to follow as well as people who enforce them (moderators). So why would it be a problem to add another rule, or two?