Topic: Reee: Which campaign has the most spammers? (Read 1098 times)

Let's use the above post as a learning experience... I'm not trying to criticize the poster in any way, but let them (and anybody else) know how to write a post worthwhile reading..

 - First of all, you need to break up your paragraphs. Four sentences per paragraph max.
 - Second of all, you don't need to bother making a recap of the thread, "what you learned"; it should be taken for granted that you read it.
 - In addition to writing shorter sentences with more punctuation, it'd be good for you to heed your own advice here:


Anyway, this is how I would have written your post, barring any major word changes:

I have read some of the comments and the arguments on the thread and most of the suggestions and advise given to Stake campaign manager is very and if only the CM accept them. And mostly the reduction of the campaign weekly posts. Because why most of those people are spamming because probably they are working in the physical life and also have an account in altcoinstalks so the work load is heavy for them so they are to post with marathon or use AI to complete their posts in the week to receive pay. So I also agree that they should reduce the quantity and go for quality. And quality always comes from 15 to 25 of posts per week.

Even 30 can generate shitposters. You don't behave to occupy the participants in the forum for 24hours. You have to free them to think what to write and be a creative writers. And with that quality posting will emerge. And another thing I also discovered from Stake, the campaign manager or whoever select participants purposely select shitposters and spammers. Probably that is their choice.

After the first thread for spammers Stake restructure their campaign rules yet it is on high side for posting quantity of 85 to get paid fully so many users have targeted that for every week to be paid full. And forgotten the quality. And one thing Stake participants should know is that, writing a long comment or thread in most cases lead to out of points or beating around the bush. Just straight to the main point and leave.

People like your simple contribution and not your long writing. Long writing is very good with good points, and what is good points unknown because what you think is a good points in your long writing is not a point for another users. Be precise and concise. Be a good ambassador for Stake.

Where I'm online its extremely common, but for this community now that I think of it more, I don't see em very often.


That explains it but unfortunately these people seem to refuse to use their brain even if their life was on the line. Their AI spam will be caught on and they will get exposed for it.


Also, to add on wasn't this "borovichok" guy basically given two chances to stop posting AI? He had drama over AI spam like one or two months ago which should've been a wake up call to stop there. It really isn't difficult for him to drop the AI stuff and just start finding and posting manually on topics that he has knowledge of.

Whatever he's in right now it's definitely over for him at this point, what he is doing is just extremely stupid especially after being given two realizations that forum members know hes AI posting.



Loll

I'm not the best person to ask; I don't keep a close eye on that space (AI, that is).

The LLM stuff in particular is pretty underwhelming, IMO: it's like having really convenient access to someone that's read every book in the library, but can only remember some of it, and didn't really understand any of it...

I hope that these types of posts don't become the norm on Bitcointalk: they're seriously tedious to read [1]. It's obvious to me (and many others) when someone's post is either superficially perfect but totally worthless, or when their post isn't worthless (because it has original thinking embedded in it), but it's clearly written at a level that's beyond the author (as in, the presentation is sophisticated, but the ideas are not). In either case (that is, the text was either generated or improved with AI), you're not fooling as many people as you might think, so, why not just relax, and be yourself? I mean, I get not wanting to sound like a dumbass, but if you're not a dumbass, then, that will shine through, trust me, and if you are a dumbass, then, well... that will shine through, too; there's no hiding it, I'm afraid: all the paraphrasing in the world can't make a stupid idea smart (you might succeed in making a stupid idea sound smart, but it will still be a stupid idea).

Anyway, if I were you, I'd stop using Grammarly (they seem to have rebuilt their product, and they're now leaning pretty hard into the "AI revolution").

[1] I've been considering an approach for some time now to get ahead of this kind of non-organic posting: I think giving each member a way to quickly "delete" posts (just from their own point of view) would be cool. But, that's not really an interesting idea on its own, where it gets compelling is when you allow people to divide their own personal modlog into named "channels" that are then made available for other users to subscribe to. So, nutildah, for example, might have one named "AI shitposts" and if I were subscribed to it, then any AI shitpost (in his estimation) that he deletes would be omitted from my view, too. That way, there's some tooling for users to take issues like these into their own hands, and because the moderators themselves aren't involved, no one can really moan about being censored or having their rights violated and suchlike, because it's their peers effectively telling them to shut up. I could also see some campaign managers picking a few very trusted user-modlog-channels to be subscribed to (either all the time, or maybe just when they're counting posts), which would make it easier for them to avoid paying for spam.

Wow, did anyone else notice that some posters with supposedly higher ratings have a higher maximum quota? There are a few users with up to 85 maximum paid posts per week. I remember having a 60 post quota, but it seems they've changed their policy and it now depends on your rating, something that I don't recall seeing a few months ago that I had gone through their announcement thread.


On top of that, the reported user borovichok has a score of over 7.5, deeming him as a good poster, by 3 different individuals.

That's true, the ones who may entirely depend of AI for their posts often are those people who don't put time to write the posts themselves. AI spamming or even use of AI for correcting your English mistakes is something which's totally destructive for someone's learning process.

I know there are many users who don't have good English grammar but they try their best to write posts themselves and overtime their writing gets improved. The ones who basically rely of ChatGpt or other AI generators that are available will not even think about improving themselves.

It really requires effort to create posts and someone who's lazy would never ever put any effort to write the posts himself. Thanks to your thread, the number of AI spammers have been reduced on this forum and most AI generated posts are also getting deleted by moderators only because of your thread. I really appreciate that thread and I believe most other members also appreciate your efforts in creating and maintaining that thread.

See, when this spammer wants to write in perfect English he can and he does. Here is an example of when he wants to use AI or pay others to post for him, there is a complete distinction. How is it possible everybody else can see it but Stake campaign manager Carollzinha cannot see it?

There is absolutely no doubt account farmers are entrenched in many campaigns but the Stake campaign has some of the worst spammers and furthermore, it seems to have more participants with neutral and negative tags as well as dubious post history than others. Only a particular campaign manager went on a hiring spree that had low quality posters with neutral and negative tags but that eventually ended when mixers were banned. Stake stands out alone now.

Don't give them ideas! Most posts from such lazy "AI-assisted" spammers and shitposters are dumb enough as it is. 

A new business idea, much like https://www.grammarly.com/?   Take some text and "dumb" it up. 

Because that would require extra effort and the whole reason shitposters are using ChatGPT is to avoid having to commit any effort at all.

If they are too lazy to just think about what they are going to type, then how do you expect them to go through all that trouble of replacing words. Now you have talked about it, how many users do you often see should short forms of words such as "u" or "bt"?

Seeing a user try to spin the text abbreviate normal words, which is unusual behavior here in the forum, is a number one red flag for me.

AI is easily identified when it makes a lot of circular posts that add nothing to the conversation other than common sense.

Original version


Post enhanced by grammarly/Quilbot

Grammarly and Quilbot are built with AI software, thus I believe that some writings modified with these tools are vetted by AI detectors. These tools assist me improve my broken English and incorrect use of punctuation marks. Check my post history; posts without these tools are severely messed up (wrong words and punctuation marks).

Routine: post here =>copy =>use grammarly/quilbot==>enhanced the grammar and punctuation marks==> post. Could be a bad practice but this seems to be the reason my posts get picked up by those detectors easily.

@nutildah your inputs and recommendations are duely noted. Thanks man. Appreciate everyone too. Better days ahead.

Why spend hours contributing to constructive discussions when, with a little AI magic, you could churn out the same volume of posts in a fraction of the time? (That's rhetorical of course, but probably the logic of some of those shitty posters.)

---

Yep, basically the same as recent case with LUCKMCFLY. According to their rating sheet, he was their "best" poster for months in a row, consistently receiving top ratings from the whole team. This is pure sheep mentality at its finest, or just blatant manipulation.

I'm confused as to why AI spammers haven't at least started trying to hide their AI posts a little to make them sound more human. example; replacing "you" to "u" and not having proper grammar. This probably wouldn't entirely fool an AI detection test but at least they would look a little more realistically written by a human than AI.

Everyone isn't a designer, nor do they want to learn. They want to post and get paid, nothing else. If they're running multiple accounts, then they have less time on their hands as well.

I've said it many times, how hard is it really to give your thoughts on a post? That's all posting is, sharing your thoughts or expertise on a subject. Why do users feel they have to cheat? I just don't get it.

How about learning how to resize the images? I have wasted 30 seconds of my life scrolling through these images because they filld the whole page. This is not in the forum rules, but it's more about common sense.

Have you seen the thread Nutildah created, and how are people reporting those AI-generated posts? It was advised to the reporters not to rely on a single AI detection tool as it may gives false positive result. So, they use at least three tools to check if a content was generated by AI or not.

LOL. You will go to such imaginative efforts to defend yourself here. Simply stunning, worthy of an AI-generated round of applause.

The only problem is your writing often sucks when you're not using AI. Here's an example of where you combined your own words and ChatGPT words together in the same post (ChatGPT is in bold):


So from the first sentence of your reply, we see that you go from not knowing how to appropriately space an apostrophe to flawless English. What are the odds that something like that would happen? Here's another:


You want to "add voice to what they have noted"? Is that really an expression? No, its not, and its not something ChatGPT would ever say.

Just stop using ChatGPT to write your posts for you and they'll stop being deleted. Its really that simple.

This is not true at all and you provided evidence yourself when you gave an example of a post flagged by only one AI detection tool. The others identified it as human-written content.


That's not true either. You just made a well-written post with proper punctuation. None of the AI detection tools have flagged it as "fake".


Looks like you haven't checked your trust summary recently. Remember that post from last year? The one that earned you a lovely "shitposter" tag from Hueristic?

Here's a reminder in case you forgot:

Still think spewing nonsense is a winning strategy?


That's possible, but highly unlikely. These AI detection tools go far beyond basic grammar checks. They are analyzing things like: sentence structure, statistical patterns and predictability of word choices. Just like generative AI models, they work on probabilities.  The more "red flags" a post raises across these various metrics, the higher the likelihood it's AI-generated content.

Do not use that saipling tool because it is definitely one of the worst that exists, and in fact most of the text (posts) you check with it will be detected as AI content. If you don't use at least 3 different detection tools, there is no point in publishing results at all, but when every AI detector shows AI in someone's posts, then it most likely cannot be a mistake.

---

Shouldn't that tool only check for spelling mistakes? If you use it to get completely artificially constructed whole or parts of sentences, then AI detectors may detect them. Whatever you've been doing until now, I think you should change the way you create content on the forum - because English is not the native language of most forum members, but we try our best and with time most of us get better.

That's cherry-picking.  That same post scores high probability of being entirely human with other AI detection algorithms like GPTzero, ContentatScale, or HiveModeration. That's why we use multiple detection tools to reduce the possibility of false positives.

On the other hand, a large number of your posts I checked came back positive with multiple detection tools, suggesting a high likelihood of AI-generated content. Another significant factor is that the vast majority of your posts in the Gambling section follow a uniform pattern – typically consisting of two paragraphs with near-perfect grammar.  People typically don't communicate in such a "robotic" way.

I appreciate your input; the next time I post, I will do my best to stay on topic and not give too many concepts in general. I always felt that providing additional details would help to raise the quality of discussion; I guess I was mistaken.

For example, suppose someone is discussing gambling depression.I try to share my honest thoughts on the first paragraph while also shedding additional light on the second paragraph about what gambling depression is, its harmful influence, and what happens to those that suffer from it. We learn every day, but I can honestly say that I never use any chatbots. I've been interacting on the meta and reputation boards without a chatbot, so why would I use it on something I'm passionate about ? (Gambling)

My problem could be with the grammarly keyboard I'm using; English is not my native language, so I use the grammarly keyboard to fix and improve my phrases after they've been written. It's possible that these AI detector sites picked up most of posts enhanced by Grammarly keyboards. I do not know. @powerGlove is this possible? I know you're a tech wizard.

You're being willfully obtuse in order to justify your AI shitposting habits. If you don't know what "willfully obtuse" means, run it through a translator, because it defines your entire attitude. You selectively used 1 AI detector while the minimum for reporting AI spam should be 2 strong positives from different detectors, which isn't the case with the post quoted above:

Hive: 0.0% likely to be AI generated
Copyleaks: Human Text

If you look at the results of the 9 posts I reported you will find all 3 of these AI detectors show a high degree of AI content in every post.

You should absolutely be canned from the Stake campaign, but I have a feeling you will not because, again, the standards for participation in your campaign are woefully weak, and it seems to have no quality control whatsoever.

Your posts failed on three different AI detector tools https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63769426


If you ask the question correctly, the AI will always write on-topic content. No one claims that some AI bot leaves posts for you. As long as you are transferring content generated with AI tools.

Honestly, these posts that were deleted by the moderators are absolute nonsense. It's even worse if you actually wrote something like that believing that it has any value. No matter how this "case" of yours ends, I advise you to think carefully about everything and accept the suggestions you get here. Judging by your answers in this thread, it is obvious that you can be constructive and direct in your communication and there is really no need to litter the forum with spam.

I think the second suggestion will be effective to reduce the number of spammers from Stake campaign. They have to increase the pay rate for each post, which will attract the qualitative posters to apply in the campaign. Most of the participants of Stake sig campaign are just making long posts without including any valuable context in it.

I was confused with this post of a Stake sig campaign participant. The user had quoted the replies from a different topic and made his post on my thread. It could be a mistake by the user, but I was surprised that the moderators haven't taken any action on that post yet. I had reported it by describing the reason properly in comments section.

Why change something that already works well. I suspect that it is beneficial for Stake to have as much spam on the forum as possible and this allows them to promote their services quite well.

This can be understood by the measures of influence that (if) will be taken in relation to their spamming participants.

On the one hand, it will be more difficult for spammers to get a job if almost all signature campaign managers demand (and voice) strict compliance with conditions, which will force them to improve the quality of posts or stop spam (activity). On the other hand, there will always be projects with low morale for which spam will show better results.

Here it would be good to hear the opinion of the Stake team.

Though it may not increase post quality but I think it will definitely reduce the amount of shitposts generated in order to meet the maximum quota. If they are not getting paid for additional posts, I doubt any of those guys will be posting so much. The less posts they have to make, the more thought they will put into their posts. That’s if the campaign will prioritize quality over quantity.

In the case of the members of the Stake campaign, I would say that they excel in what I call pseudo quality. It is very typical to see in the Gambling Section responses by them on page for example 47 of a thread in which they drop three long paragraphs that have something to do with what they are quoting but in reality are pure verbiage that passes just enough in most cases so that a moderator does not delete their post if it is reported and the manager pays them for the post. There are honorable exceptions within that campaign, but I think it's mostly the payment system they have that incentivizes that.

All of the tools work in the same way and produce similar outcomes; they are simply different names for the same software. I've seen that every well-written post with proper punctuation is automatically rated "Fake" by these softwares. It's insane to have your reputation tarnished because of what some random websites say.

It's my words against a high-ranked profile, thus they don't matter. But I'd rather lose my campaign spot than admit what I didn't do. This is how I was raised.

I'm not saying that these scanners are 100% accurate, try testing a few more websites on your reported posts, which as I mentioned already, looked AI-written, does mine look like it was written by an AI? Probably not, you can also ask other members. You believe that I want to prove my point but I actually don't. I'd rather be proven wrong and that your posts are actually human written, because it would suck seeing someone lose their spot in their signature campaign and/or in the forum.

If you keep the same payrate per post and lower the weekly quota, you won't magically increase post quality as same shitposters will stay in the campaign an the only thing that will change is amount of shitposts.



Pretty much any chatbvot tool as all I see in your replies are generic responses to generic topics.


Its interesting how those "4 experienced individuals" rate users simiarly which makes me think that (at best) those 4 are doing a very shitty job and not actually reading posts, or more realistically that story about 4 different persons rating posts is just a bs.

But come to think of this how could a campaign I mean same campaign run about 2 to 3 same signature campaign what did they think their participants would product spam right?

Yes It will likely be spam since they have much users and they aren't just doing it for the passion they have for this forum but rather than for the passion they have for earnings though I know we are all getting paid but let it not be obviously where it would shows that people are only interested for their paid and not for the Joy they derived in joining in deep conversation. With this, either you are being paid or not it won't cost you anything rather you post freely without the needs to be called spammers.

I really love the ideas of op saying most of the campaign that is highly populated should be cut down to reduce spam especially those that has been recorded as most spamming campaign, or that are launching two campaign to reduce to one only then can they increased their pay rates with this anyone who is chosen or selected would seat up and know what they are doing.

But still this doesn't stopped projects from hiring as much as many members they think of but, the problems now bounces back to managers, I think merits shouldn't be the only criterion to determine whether a user is a quality poster. Why some manager also consider reputation, if they wanna consider by merits then account creation date should be determined as well because I believe that most of the accounts are airdropped merits while some low merits are from scratch meaning they are created after the meritocracy.

And other ways to determine is also checking their post radio the gape between posts also matters, because I can't seem to understand someone posting between 2 to 5 minute before making another post it makes it looks very messed up at least15 or  20 to 30 minutes is okay in my opinion.

I used the same AI detection website to test one of your most recent posts, and it came up 100% AI generated. Do you still believe the report, or are you using AI to post?

If I run your complete post history through the same system, I'll get more. These tools are imperfect and cannot be used.

https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector/e5dc28b08011e3873a9da1980615e942

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/03/08/yr25g.jpeg

Most AI writers have a very specific way of typing—too formal or robotic—using certain expressions and words and some other characteristics. Your posts fit perfectly with what I'm referring to. It seems that you have nothing to say in your defense; if it were just one or two posts, I could possibly claim that it was a false positive, even though they look AI-written; however, Nutildah reported 9, which all fit perfectly into the category I just mentioned, and multiple detectors have shown the same results, so it's not my, his, her, or someone else's opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I will not be pressured into admitting to something I did not do, and if the manager is fine with whatever the website detector report says, she can remove me; I do not want to be the reason the campaign is receiving negative energy. This is not pride; it is understanding who you are and not allowing others do it for you.

Thought I was leaving the reputation and Meta board for good

I have no problem on reading a more detailed post as long as it’s not a forced prolonged which can be end on simple sentence. Making it more detailed is different than what I’m describing here. I don’t want to quote post here but I talking about post that doesn’t make sense at all yet constructed on 2 to 3 paragraphs long.


Stake is different because they allowed user to participate even if some of them has proven alt of scammer, ban evader, shitposter, purchased account and many more. It’s not about the manager specifically but rather how they manage their campaign.


LoL

I don't think we should expect much when the maximum quota is at 60 posts, and you're receiving a 20% bonus on each post made on the gambling board. The gambling board is flooded with nonsense. It's extremely common to see replies that have nothing to do with the subject of the topic!

I don't doubt that there are participants who create decent posts, but there's a large number of them who're after the maximum they can receive. I'm not going to jump into assumptions to judge their financial situation, and I'm referring to users from third-world countries, but I'm going to remain to the statement that you cannot write constructive and contributing posts when you're after such a quota. I personally couldn't imagine myself writing so many posts and remain on-point; I'd have to spend all day on the forum and still, I would either run out of subjects or a large number of my posts would be of substandard quality.
I think it would be better to own up your mistake and move on, and perhaps, you'd be forgiven by your campaign manager, community or whoever else. The deleted posts were 100% written by an AI software, I can distinguish if it's written by AI without even checking it with any kind of scanner. Most of the times I'm on point, I've reported a handful of users in the past and can now recognize them with decent accuracy. You've been caught, and this isn't the first time either. You don't seem to be learning from your mistakes.

Sometimes it makes more sense to include more details in conversation rather than simply one or two liner responses. Most people are more interested in the details and how you came to such a conclusion than the answers themselves.

Stake signature is no different from other campaigns; they are only receiving negative energy because the manager does not belong to any club or pays more attention to forum politics, the DT, or the Merit system.

Four experienced individuals grade stake participants, and users with negative evaluations are dropped. My postings are misinterpreted for AI-generated content since they are perhaps too brilliant to be written by humans. I guess.

Both of you summarized the problem of Stake campaign. I gave the manager a suggestion the last time on the former thread, but it seems they implemented what they think is the best.
The rating system is deceitful. If there's a way the participants will complain they may. I have looked at the posts of the users with good ratings, the only criterion for rating is "the length of post". These guys paste wall of texts making it impossible for anyone to read and engage in healthy conversation. There are some good posters in that campaign, but the rules is gradually turning them all to spammers.

• Remove the bonus system
• Cap the campaign at $100
• Remove the post raters, I don't think they are need
• With your weekly budget, your avatar and signature will still dominate the gambling board

The problem on Stake campaign despite they have a lot of people handling the campaign is most of them don’t use the forum personally to have the idea on what’s good quality post is. Most of the Stake participants especially on gambling boards makes their post unnecessary long despite the content is so simple and can be expressed on few line of sentence.

Probably the Stake CM based their scoring on the length of the post not on the actual thought.  This is probably the reason why they still keep a lot of purchased account and AI spammer.

Their pay rate too is insanely low that’s why users are posting are just to get max payment and bonus.

And add to that the incentive of having a bonus, so there are members who have at least get it more than once and so they know what the supposedly campaign manager is looking and so they produces this long post that nobody reads because it's just that, they add more to look like they put a lot of thoughts on their reply hence, possible for a bonus.

This campaign has been running for many years and yet the CM don't know how to used the merit system, and to say that they don't trust the merit system, and this is the result, potential spammers go accepted in the campaign and incentivize.

Perhaps, or you may just wind up with the same post quality just less of it.
Either way, I think at this point that it really comes down to the fact that for whatever reason instead of removing people that are spamming the CM just let's it go on.

Should be a rule of sorts, if more then X% of your posts are junk / spam you are removed.
And then you actually have to enforce it.

-Dave

I'm not sure how this AI detector works ( this tools can mislead) , but how did you evaluate my postings using common sense and the ones I responded to as being on topics and decide they were written by AI? If you pay attention to my posts, you will see that all of my responses are on topics. I don't just post; I make sure to quote, and all of my quotes are always on topics, which AI can't do.

Reporting some of my posts and getting them moderated ( is normal) does not mean you are right. I'll state it again: I've never used AI to post, and I have no idea how it works in the first place. It's foolish to subscribe to some AI bots to be posting on the forum. ( I can't)

Read my posts carefully and the ones I quoted. What kind of AI can do that ? I've been wrongly accused before but please don't use it against me. I've been able to increased my posts rating from the last incident.

Edit:
I'll post them here for everyone to see, and I'm curious how you convinced the moderators that these 100% human discussions were AI generated because some random sites said so.

These were healthy discussions and the mod had to throw them out like that ...... Shocked


https://talkimg.com/images/2024/03/08/yjRiv.jpeg
https://talkimg.com/images/2024/03/08/yjtwH.jpeg
https://talkimg.com/images/2024/03/08/yjF4I.jpeg
https://talkimg.com/images/2024/03/08/yjzNg.jpeg
https://talkimg.com/images/2024/03/08/yjE2d.jpeg

It’s hard to open a topic and not see two or more Stake participants posting there. The conditions of the campaign is the reason why its participants are motivated to spam the forum. I doubt any of the campaign participants were posting this much before joining the campaign. Most of them make 80+ posts per week just to meet the maximum post quota and get paid more. I believe if the CM adopts a weekly post quota of 20-30 posts, the post quality will be much better than it is now.

A campaign that works according to the principles of "quantity instead of quality" and has been doing so for a very long time definitely shows that it does not matter what its participants write, but how many posts they make every week/month. I sincerely doubt that anyone from their team reads all those posts, much less checks them with AI detectors, because in that case they would have to reject at least 50% of the posts as uncountable, which means that the spammers would look for their business elsewhere.

However, I hope that the Stake team will listen to some of the advice and change some things in their campaign.

Stake recently removed the Sr. Members from their campaign but they are still one of, if not the largest signature campaign. They have not taken any other significant measures to reduce the amount of spam. I checked some of the names I recognized from their campaign on Ninjastic and some of them have 75+ posts in a week. No coincidence these are all people who make redundant and low quality posts to inflate their count.

Their rating system is also entirely useless, as AI spammers like YuginKadoya were always near the highest rated week after week. Going back several months in their rating spreadsheet I see that jakelyson, who I am certain is another alt of YuginKadoya based on their writing style and behavioral patterns, was also enrolled in their campaign at the same time.

I agree here that Stake is by far the leading campaign when looking at spam production.
It is completely unclear why this is so because they currently have the largest weekly budget and everything could look completely different.

For me, the best thing is that the campaign is managed by a team of 6 people, which leaves only two possible conclusions. they deliberately allow this spamfest or they are incompetent to manage such a large campaign.

Need to ree this thread since it was locked and I still have questions for the Stake campaign manager. I voted for Stake in the original thread, BTW, because the sheer volume of shitposts generated by this campaign is insane.


Seems like people aren't misinterpreting anything but rather you are failing to apply the rules of your own campaign. I bet you I could find at least 5 active AI spammers within your campaign right now. Let's the start with the most obvious one, who had been criticized for his non-constructive shitposting for months:

borovichok

Recently I had 9 "AI spam" reports against him marked as "Good":



Although this one remains "unhandled", I suppose because it is half genuine and half AI (guess which half is which   ):



It's absolutely a fair generalization given the exceptionally low standards you have for the quality of poster who may join your campaign.


As was already mentioned, this is a completely meaningless metric that is not valued by anyone on the forum other than your staff and participants.


My suggestions would be:

1. Cut the number of participants you have in half, retaining only the highest-merited users with non-purchased accounts.
2. Cut the total number of weekly posts paid per participant by 1/3. You can pay them more per post if you'd like since you are dismissing the worst posters.

This way, the chances of your campaign being named the spammiest will be reduced by half.