Topic: [Proposal] What to do with hardcore spammers/scammers/shitposters? (Read 233 times)

I have to put entire sections on ignore, not just individual members (and that list is extensive, too).  It's really unfortunate that I don't read Bitcoin Discussion and that I get crap or no responses to some of the threads I create in Altcoin Discussion/Speculation, but that's just the way it is.  Then again, people might be afraid to post in my threads since they tend to be self-moderated, but who knows.

Not likely he's going to do that.  That's the best part of this forum, even if it allows morons to replicate like E coli on spinach.

I quote your reply because it's the first one; but I think my point has been misunderstood or maybe I didn't explain in an ordered way. I'm not saying that people should be judge by their post quality; but rather for their actions. I know there are threads I don't understand, with good replies that make no sense to me, but nevertheless, they are useful for other people. Of course content is updated; this is a forum after all, so that's why I think I've not explained myself pretty well.

---

I'm aware; and have some users there. But me not liking how someone writes/feeling it's complete BS, is not the point of the suggestion

---

That's actually quite the opposite of what I'm proposing. I'm in favour of freedom of speech; but I think that there has to be some limit to it; one of the most current/modern fascist argument is actually freedom of speech. They claim to have the right to spread hate and other stuff; but that's not actually freedom of speech. I recall some paradox on the topic....


This would be some kind of "extreme resource"; not just throwing accusations and requesting to ban a user because of a different oppinion. As with everything, a system can be good, but if abused; it can be the worst thing ever created. Since the DT uptade I consider most DT users I've seen active to be quite sensible and fair; and that's why I put a "high" number of said users as "judges". Besides; that's wxactly why it's a suggestion. I had an idea, I thought it could be a good system if used with responsibility; and now I share that thought. Life would be just boring if everyone agreed, so I don't think people would be elegible for a "ban-hearing" just because of a different approach to a topic.

---

First line and you are already insulting to prove your point. Surprinsingly, I happen to agree with the second part of the sentence: what is not useful for me can be to someone else; but that was not the point of my OP. 


I've had to check this one; I have not participated in a Sig Camp since the Waves campaign, which was 2 years ago! I also haven't applied to any other sig camp since said time aprox.


I believe that current DT (updated a month and something ago) combined with merit system does actually have a "must be correct benchmark" function. People are trusted for a reason, or at least where I come from, trust is something you earn.


Please, point me a single trust I've sent as retaliation


Neutral trust can in fact be used for other kind of "alerts"

Your proposal is stupid. It only seems a sensible proposal to those as low functioning as yourself. You see the problems is very simple. A "useless" post to a person who is thick-as-shit (such as yourself) is likely a HIGHLY VALUABLE contribution to those that have the ability to understand the relevant and on topic valid and independently verifiable points that posters such as ourselves are capable of making.

For instance - let us say we challenge you to bring here now even 1 post of our own where the central point was debunked. Go find it csmonkey and then present the clear analysis you have applied to it to demonstrate it is INCORRECT and that you can debunk it.

If you can do so (which you will not) then we will set you to find another 20 or so of them (still less than 5% of our posts) that you can demonstrate are incorrect also.

You see your brain is not capable of grasping that you are the USELESS and net negative member. Merely a shit munching fool trying to feltch away at the ass pipes of those you hope may shart some merit into your eager face so that you can spam your sig for a slightly higher rate.

If you really care what is best and optimal for the forum then just delete your account and never return. Also make sure anyone with close genetic links to yourself is also prevented from joining.

Your proposal is simply an attempt to silence those that you can not win debates or arguments with because you lack the intelligence to do so. If you can not debunk their central points then it your own posts that are useless and devoid of any value. Like the initial post you just made.

Let's rather scrape away the bottom feeders and morons (csmiami and other such dirt) who proliferate observably incorrect garbage like the initial post and kick off all the sig spammers who are only here for financial reasons and not because they are genuine enthusiasts that wish to help build the end to end decentralized and trustless arena the REAL ENTHUSIASTS want to see completed.

Free speech is the ONLY way forward for this movement, transparent and open debate. Peoples opinions directly related to the initial post/central point of any thread should be left in tact. If during the thread you can not debunk their points that are in opposition to your own then it is likely that your own points are garbage.

We think you should post your 5 BEST original thought inspiring posts so we can take a look at the output from one that seeks to judge others value here. Or will we be able to pull them to pieces as USELESS dirt?

DT (dirty turds) have a high concentration of idiots and those that have directly financially motivated dirt on them. I would not seek to use their opinions as some valid benchmark that does not require closer analysis. It seems we have started to see a shift of the most dirty and corrupt leaving DT1 but that is just a good start , these turds seem to be clinging though to DT2 which is worrying. These DINGLEBERRIES need to be flushed totally not still having their corrupt trust abuse hanging around stinking up the place.

Using DT as some kind of "must be correct" benchmark is not going to wash around here after the flagrant abuse of the trust system for so long, their OWN observable dirty histories in many cases and the fact one by one they are requesting to leave so their behaviors are not under such scrutiny.

People complaining about retaliatory feedback better make sure they have not used "feedback" as their own kind of retaliation for simply not winning an argument on thread or not appreciating someones opinion that they could not debunk. Or to try and silence whistle blowing.

The trust system is to warn people about direct financial risk and danger ONLY. If you use it for any other reason then you can not moan about getting retaliatory feedback without demonstrating clear double standards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR - debunk their on topic relevant points or accept it is your own points that are likely the low value noise. Csmiami is clearly low functioning, ignore anything he says. He is suggesting crushing free speech and ensuring group think.

Enforcing the rules should not be a popularity contest, and the majority should not be able to vote to ban the voices of the minority.

Having said all that, what game-protect is doing (leaving pages of blatantly false trust feedback against users supporting his flag, and spamming the threads of these users) is pretty much textbook trolling, and he should be banned for this reason.

You can create a self-moderated topic if this is your concern.

Freedom of speech is not just about censorship of your comments by authorities. It also includes the ability to voice your opinion without it being drowned out by mindless, noisy demonstrators.

Spamming is against the rules and that is why reported spam posts got deleted.
Scams are not moderated and therefore mods wont ban scammers unless they broke some other rules in the process.

Your suggestion of users coming together and 'arranging' for another user to be banned is not the way it should go and is pretty controversial. It is like oppressing a different view on things. The 30 of us 'arrange' for you to get banned because we don't like you even if you didn't break any rules.

Like suchmoon said, if you don't like someone put him on ignore and don't talk to him.
If he is a scammer open a thread in the appropriate section, post all the proof and have him tagged.

I demand this bitch to remove the false feedback he left for me and other users. Bitch remove!!!!


But I can not stop people to see my feedback left by that game-protect bitch.

Voting against freedom of speech? I sure hope theymos will never implement that, even for the users I completely disagree with.

You can vote with the "Ignore" thingy. It's actually better than a ban - sort of like "shadowban" feature available on other forums. The user can still post and they don't know that their posts are not visible to others. As opposed to getting banned and creating a new account. The only problem is to get more users to use "Ignore".

There you have it, if they haven't broken the rules then they don't deserve to be banned, voting to ban a user is a terrible idea , simply because post quality is pretty subjective, a simple example is the WO thread, many people would think that the majority of the posts there are spam/worthless but people do earn all kind of merit for such posts, which means other people view them as  deserving content.

Voting has proven itself to be a drama-maker, the trust system drama went to ATH once Theymos introduced the voting system, let alone voting to ban a user, maybe everyone should come to realize that this forum or any other forum can't be sustain without the variation of content quality, this is not github - it's bitcointalk forum, it must have all different types of users and they are all welcome to post as long as they stay within a reasonable level of shitposting and don't break the rules.

As we all may be aware of, there are certains accounts in the forum that are.... a huge pain in the ass (to say the least). To bring an example, the recent "situation" with game-protect (flag thread here, and negative trust retaliation here).

To simplify this; a well know spammer/"almost scammer" has received a flag, and made some negative trust retaliation; which is quite useless, but has also been spamming threads created by people supporting the flag. Mods have deleted most/all of the spam replies, but that doesn't feel like enough (for many).

Now, this is a recent example, in which I got a bit caught, but there are many other cases out there (personally, I'd add The-One-Above-All to the list; who is on many peoples' ignore list as an example, because of his constant useless replies), and I'm sure a longer list could be created, but I don't think it's neccessary for this.

After giving it some thought; I believe I've reached something that could be considered a solution: the same way some global moderators/admins can perma-ban users for X reasons; there could be a system to vote on some users that despite not being actually breaking rule forums enough to be perma-banned (example of GP getting posts deleted and nothing else), they are well known to be some kind of "cancer" (maybe the word is too hard, but it's late night and I cannot come up with something better) and in case some kind of agreement is reached; said user could get perma-banned. I'll further explain:

---

Say I've been posting shit for the last year and scamming people and doing some nasty stuff, enough to have my account veeery very red painted; but as I would technically not have broken any forum rule, I'd still be able to do the nasty stuff here.

But, the nasty stuff I've been doing is so nasty; that at least 30 DT1 people would support my perma-ban (some more thought has to be given to this, since DT2 and non-DT users should also have a saying). Then; like with the flag system, someone could create a thread saying: "Let's perma-ban Csmiami/ Csmiami should be expelled from the forum" or something similar.

In the thread, similar to flag system, all the adecuate information on why that should happen should be provided. Since it's some serious thing, the user in question would receive an email/PM notification, in order to be able to defend his stay on the forum. And on the trust/somewhere over the user profile page; a little window to provide your vote.

I have not said 30 DT1 members randomly before; I consider it something difficult that 30 people agree on something; judging by how responsible some/most of those members are. But, since it's just a rough idea, that could be modified.

---

Believing I've writen everything that came to my mind; I'll edit if I can think of something more