Topic: Recommendation "All the Sig campaign Must have (Report signature abuse) Link" (Read 1654 times)

you should investigate a little further this is actully just  fresh address i let BC make after having coins stolen...  dunno how it would be linked yahoo besides maybe he's either given me a little btc or i've given him, we've been part of same community for 2-3 years so tx's between us is common... if you have any further questions can you please address me without blindly accusing me or atleast give me a link to  a thread you accusing me of something in via p.m. so i will atleast know about this

but the thing that puzzles me the most is how you "caught" this with proof that is umm ununderstable to me (sorry i not that "techy") but the 3-4 different poker sites which have strict rules and good security against multi accounts, and the other forums/casinos/dice/gambling sites ALL missed it... I know you have "trusted reputation" here as you are long standing member and im not the most active on this forum, but i have long standing trust over the gambling community and if you knew me at all (which i think you should before putting my name out there in a negative way especially just something you suspect but couldnt be able to prove) you would know me "Girlscout" is not yahoo

lol please let me know how me and yahoo trusting each other with a shared private key is undeniable proof? because im denying you accusations

Please, tell me more about there campaigns without limits,

OP this is a stupid idea, newbies and jr members dont have enough sig space to add this

If you find someone publishing posts here violating forum rules - included posting low quality/pointless/uninteresting posts - while wearing a paid signature (or avatar) advertising, you should click on put a few words to describe the violation, click Submit and let  the Mods decide about it. Maybe, if you wish to be kind enough with campaign managers, you could also let them known about by PM.
IMHO, Spam affect all of us & cannot be solved just by not having a signature shown on our screens.

if you find someone's posts to be of low quality put them on ignore and you wont have to see their signature, i dont see how it affects you.

Quickseller did more than the limit in the past even though it was not paid.


I dont think its that simple. There are very active and contributing members with a paid signature. If they make 300 constructive posts per week, why not paid them a fair price for it? IMHO limits are either an easy way to "reduce spam" without actually doing anything or just a limit on how much those running the campaign are willing to pay. It does not remove the need to check your participants.


IMHO the reputation of a campaigns manager and their ability to fight spam is more important. If "it is known"[1] that a certain campaign has very strict anti spam rules and dedicated managers to enforce them, it will get avoided by those trying to game the campaign for a few (million) satoshi. If the campaign is mainly run by bots that can easily fooled by adding some bullshit at the end of each post, it will be done and mods have to step in. I have said this in the past and I will say it again, this is not something you want the staff to handle. It should be handled by campaigns and their managers. If this gets to much work for staff, they will not double the mods, they will just ban paid signatures. A ban on paid signatures in demand since I can remember by many old members.

IMHO this is a simple "get your act together you dont want a higher authority to solve this for you" situation.


[1] http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/53532811.jpg

@shorena


I just meant if all signature campaigns had a max post cap (that they'll pay out on per week) e.g. 150 then post quality is likely to be fairly high. I'm sure nobody really wants to do over 150 a week any way really if it's not paid.

I'm not here to criticise any campaigns but some have no limit per week, I've seen several users making hundreds of posts a week.

I don't think staff need to step in on anybody at the moment but obviously if there are unlimited pay per post campaigns they're obviously more likely to be abused than Da Dice for example who pay for a max of 100 posts.

DaDice is very good in that regard. My experience with other campaigns and their managers has been different. Some do not seem to care at all, as Quickseller states with their example. Some are not even active on the forum in order to notice a possible PM in the first place.


Just because its a different interference in their freedom to do business here, its ok? Im not sure I get you. Either its not a big deal or interference by the staff is required. Besides, its hardly censorship. It would be more of a regulation regarding certain business. We already have those e.g. ponzis go into a specific section, same with faucets and possibly more in the future. Granted this regulation would directly dictate how to do business here and not only where.


Try politics and society.

If anybody spams or does lots of crappy non constructive posts they get kicked off the campaign or banned so what's the issue? I'm speaking as a long term participant in the Da Dice signature & avatar campaigns. I get 100 constructive posts every week & whilst I can only speak from experience of the Da Dice campaigns....they kick anybody who has poor post quality any way.

I think maybe there should be a maximum post cap per week on all signature campaigns, limited to 150 maybe but that's it. You can't censor people.

To be honest though the worst posters/trolls I've seen on this forum are in the Bitcoin Discussion & Bitcoin Speculation threads & they're not part of signature campaigns.

I would need to double check, however IIRC, the two addresses that were spend linked together were addresses that were then currently receiving signature payouts.

Edit:
this proves that yahoo62278 was in a signature campaign as of the first week of June (and it was in one in late May as well). The "1yahoo..." address is in its profile.

The address 1ERwwmMeM89U88hCtY8M8tAy84h1kmNZem is linked to the 1Yahoo.... address via https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/04b6188f73607e28/addresses

If you look at the transactions of that wallet, you will see that there are a lot of transactions to and from luckybit.it

By undeniable do you mean recent?
Sometimes, accounts get sold and that really queers thing up.

I don't think it would be a good idea to 'force' the campaign managers to have this feature then as in any case we can message the respective managers if we notice an abuse.

It's mainly an idea for managers and this would be like making the forum admins go 'out of the way' for these signature campaigns by making this a compulsion. The respective managers can think about adopting it though.

This is already built in at the forum, as the 'Report to moderator' function and the banning system (users may banned for 14/30 days for spamming sig). As some of the signature campaigns will ban users that are banned, it is already effective.

It's arguable, especially if he's suggesting the forum admins essentially 'force' campaigns to do this or to have a 'proper' report link in the signature (like we do for posts already).

This post shouldn't be in meta as it's a suggestion for only signature campaigns and for the manages of the campaign.

I agree with the opinion though as it will help the managers to be notified of those users who are abusing their campaigns but spamming and it will be easier for users to report them. Some managers also address their PMs when they receive such reports while in case of reporting spammers, the forum already has a report button.

I Think individual Campaign Managers always take care of the Spam messages and don't endorse them , i have seen some campaigns not paying for full posts and users complaining them that they were not paid for their full posts and often say please count my most again i have posted "X" posts but have got only paid for "y" posts.
so from my point of view is that you(we users) can our self often report such cases to the campaign managers , i do have seen a lots of thread opened by users stating "Is that user cheating XYZ campaign".

voted no because:


I don't think so. most of them are probably new users who doesn't know the forum very well.

and I think 70% of the reports will come from users that doesn't like signature campaigns in the first place, making their decisions biased.

I don't think it should be required, but I do hope more signature campaign sponsors start to adopt the tactic to save themselves money.  As others have pointed out, it is the campaign sponsors that are paying for these posts, they should be VERY interested to learn about examples of spamming that is tied to their site.

So if they don't know about or click on the report to moderator button why would they click the other one? The admins aren't going to force campaigns to waste space in their signature when there is already a perfectly good button that does the job.


This. If campaign managers did their job and either didn't pay or accept poor posters quality would improve dramatically and spam decrease drastically. If shitposters were turned away from every campaign then they would have no choice but to improve their posts.

Report abuse link is a good idea. The report link will not stop spam entirely. At least will increase their chance of being kicked from campaigns. This will impact spammers more than having a spam post deleted by mods.

I voted NO because such a "Report signature abuse" would only be a redundant duplicate of the "Report to Moderator" link. I'm used to report signature spam post with the said "Report to Moderator" link when I think to have found one of such posts, like this (quoted) one.
IMHO, a more efficient way to deal with signature spam is to have (forcefully or voluntarily) signature & avatar campaigns to pay some BTC, and/or donate campaign earnings confiscated to enrolled users violating their rules, to initiatives aimed at rewarding "good" reports of posts violating forum rules, like this one from Muhammed Zakir. This would be like applying a Pigouvian taxation on advertising campaigns for the negative externalities (spam posts) they produce.