Topic: Report a Signature Campaign Spammer! - page 3. (Read 3011 times)

I agree that the mentioned post is a spam but that thread contains 186 posts . Now i need your clarification whether  a) Remaining 185 posts are not spammy ones ? (Are all of them are good ones)
b) Or you people focus is only on stake signature posts and close your eyes on other posst with or without signatures.

Its seems the the agenda is to ban the stake campaign or change the manager  ( And not the fight against spam) ?

Someone from Bitcointalk's Staff / Moderators or Global Moderators doing a lousy work deleting my posts on both Primedice and Stake Official topics.
Just because i have my signature as the one from the campaign doesn't mean i am posting for the campaign.

I was also requested by Edward to post twice per day, so if you do not have any sort of knowledge whatsoever on why I am advertising both Primedice and Stake as i am the Official Brand Manager you could just ask or even check Signature's Campaign old sheet where you would see i have 0 post counts and i am not even getting paid for the campaign at first place since i was the one who said Steve to not count them at all.

Video containing all 9 deleted Primedice / Stake's advertising posts just because someone felt like it was considered spam: https://imgur.com/a/nW2EZPU

I'd like to hear your opinion of why you would consider this post among the high quality non-spammy posts that your campaign members are making. We may have different thoughts on spam, so I'd love to hear your point of view. This post was written by lyks15, a user's who's posts that aren't spam in your perspective, as you are content with paying them for this post:

My question to you: What do you see in the post that makes you think that it is not spam? What value does it add, what is the point of the post and/or what makes it interesting? Keep in mind that 166 posts were written before it.

I'd love to hear your rationale. Thanks in advance.

Of course it won't work if you rely entirely on the merit requirement, like you seem to rely on ranks here:


Merit is not a solution, it's one of the tools you can use to filter the pool of candidates to a manageable set. You still need to... you know... manage the campaign, including your obligation to the forum to not encourage low effort spammy posts. If that involves paying more and/or limiting max number of posts and/or kicking out low quality posters - that's what you gotta do.

Your lazy arrogance is almost like a work of art, well done.

The politicization of merits, which I'd argue is a type of merit abuse, encourages a form of spamming by high-ranked members. It encourages some members to be hostile to others who are disliked or less popular, and to continue low-quality posts. It also reinforces the cycle of handing out merits to people who have already accumulated merits.

My aim, though, is not to call anyone out or antagonize. I am just pointing to a real problem preventing newer members from rising through the ranks.

I won't cast stones from my glass house as I am very much aware of some of my campaigns having some lower quality posters in them. However, Steve, you seem reluctant to acknowledge the issue or make any changes that would benefit the forum overall. But then again I can't blame you. I think all that you've done has been very aware. While I disagree that the spam issue would give stake a bad name I believe it to be the opposite.. The more the name is seen, the more it is getting inside other users heads and even if someone gets pissed they might visit the site and then see that they actually enjoy it.

I tip my fedora to you Steve, it takes balls to put on this act and if you follow through with it (which it very much looks like you will), you'll probably stand to gain more than you'd ever lose.

Question, do you do anything else at Stake or do you only handle the campaign related things?

I take this as a compliment man, after all it is titled "A New Kind of Campaign" When I saw all of these campaigns it didn't take long for me to realise it could be done better and cheaper and that's what made me one of the most successful campaign managers on Bitcointalk.


What even is spam? (not aimed at anyone specifically)

It's not even fair to call people who are trying their hardest to make posts a spammer. A spammer is someone who intentionally makes low quality posts over and over again. I've seen people go as far to say if you're from a certain country you're automatically a shit poster and that's just not fair at all. I've seen many people here make racists remarks towards members of this community simply because things like English isn't their first language and say that means they shouldn't be allowed to be here. Everyone deserves equality and a fair chance regardless of if you're a 0 merit newbie with English as a second language or a 3000+ merit Legendary with English as a first language. We should be more focused on treating each other as human beings and not treating each other based on a merit system full of abuse. I had a surgery earlier in the year and my surgeon didn't speak great English when we talked. Does this mean I should have dismissed his opinions and looked at him as someone who wasn't credible?

I'm not saying people should be full out responding in other languages. I'm saying a lot of what makes someone considered a "spammer" are grammer errors smaller than the one you were so eager to point out just now.

    It appears that the fact that the wages are too low is the crux of the problem. You get what you pay for. Although stake.com is getting their ad splattered all over the forum in great quantity, you really think it's giving them a good reputation around here? Frustrating readers with a bunch of shit posts probably is going to make more people stay away than actually click on the link and become a new customer.

I will stand by this no matter how unpopular: merit abuse is a problem, not just in terms of fraudulent handing out of merits but also in the circle of merit-issuance among regulars. A lot of the merits are handed out to those who have already amassed a bunch of merits. I would even go as far as to say that some members of high rank are getting merits for low quality posts, just because... it seems the norm in the forum to send merits to people who have already accumulated them. I suppose the problem here is the politicization of merits.

If people have a fit over this, so be it. I know it's not popular to bring this up.

Okay I just want to point out involving merits into a a signature campaign won't work out. All that will do is encourage merit abuse and then everyone will say, "Oh look at that SteveStake now and his merit abuse! This merit abuse is clearly because the wages are too low!"

I tried to involve merit into the campaign in the past and I consider it the biggest failure in the entire campaign. I held a contest and the people who earned the most merit for the week would split a few hundred dollars in prizes. I say it was the biggest failure because I had to kick so many people out for merit abuse and people were breaking rules and begging for merit. Merit is abused heavily already without someone else giving incentive to "earn" it. If I add in merit rules to the contest we can guarantee a SteveStake is encouraging merit abuse thread.

I totally agree with it. I am a victim of it, can't join a nice signature campaign although I have never scammed anyone and I am better than the average joe poster here.

Increasing merit requirements and negative trust have nothing to do with spam. That's BS

This was answered in the first post:

Says someone who has been accused of extortion and all the possible shit ongoing here. Seriously dude , you talk about greed ? You are greed in personification.

How can they know it when not checking my content but denying because of merit, negative trust or anything else but not for content?




This one clearly hasn't so why does he get bashed to implement them? Putting all low ranked members into general suspicion?

No, and I never said that.

If you aren't getting accepted to a high paid campaign, it is because there are other people who, in the eyes of the manager of said campaign, are making better posts than you and are taking the available slots. If you want to be accepted to a high paid campaign, then you should examine your own posting behaviors and seek to improve them.

Some campaigns have a merit requirements or a trust requirement. This is entirely at the discretion of the manager of said campaign. If you don't like these metrics, then you are free to not apply to campaigns which stipulate said metrics.

So you wanna say people who didn't get accepted on high paid campaigns broke the forum rules and that's why they are not being accepted?
Or is it because of the low earned amount of merit, negative trust, and other stupid metrics?


Has Lauda more rights than a newly registered user on that forum per forum rules?

I agree and have pointed out the same: a lot of the merit simply goes to those who have already accumulated merit - it doesn't necessarily flow to quality posts. I have been a professional writer and use proper grammar and spelling, and make sure my posts have substance, and I rarely get merit. Right now I am interacting with the thread and am not just posting to post.

A requirement of 15 earned merits would exclude me, and it's not clear it would favor those with more quality posts. The merit just does not flow around. People can argue differently, but so be it.

Perhaps you could point to the rule which says that every member who joins this forum has a right to display a signature and participate in a signature campaign, regardless of how much they spam or how low value their posts are?

No one has the right to even hold an account on this forum, let alone a signature or be part of a campaign. If you break the rules, your privileges will be removed, be that a signature ban or an account ban.

A forum rank has in the majority of accounts nothing to do with earned merit.


You just admitted you accept a high-grade of collateral.
So you basicly give a fuck to the other high amount of forum members who gets unfairly treaten by that campaign rule.