Topic: [SMAS] Signature Managers against Spam (light version) - page 14. (Read 100714 times)

I bet you do. Plenty of gambling/sports forums to do that though.


They're not. They post in the popular threads like football which seemingly has a thread for half the leagues in the world and they're easily abused as evidenced by all those FortuneJack spammers belonging to one person that were posting the same shit just reworded slightly post after post day after day going on for months.


I think renaming it 'Trash' would be even better. I wouldn't mind if people were actually having some worthwhile discussion in there but it's largely just illiterate spammers looking to easily get away with hitting their post requirement to the max. Just report nonsense threads like that one and they'll either be locked or trashed (as that one now is). That sub could do with a clean-up to be honest.

Nooo please.  Many of us love to discuss our favorite sports and our bets.  It's just some of the campaign managers aren't doing a good job running their campaigns.  FJ is a good example of that.

Here's a tip.  The threads where the spammers are likely to flock into are the less popular sports and leagues threads.  When you see someone make a thread on Curling and see that it's so active.  Chances are, those people are most likely spammers.

Edit:  Maybe it's a good idea to rename the Gambling Discussion section to 'Betting Discussion', to get rid and avoid dumb threads like these:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1711623

Just did a quick check and I think I have found the proof that some accounts on FJ campaign are owned by 1 member only. Will post it on the "know alt account" thread sooner/later today, still need to do re-check about it. Creating the post is also need a bit hard work

Edit : just sent pm to Fortunejack as well about this, just wanna know what is their opinion if there are some member participating in their campaign with many accounts.

True, but I don't think they should be allowed to exploit campaigns and the forum in such a way. It's not permitted to multi-post so neither should be regurgitating something you said on your several alt accounts all in a row.


Not from staff as far as I'm aware. I'll contact them about it shortly.

The positive is that the spam is restricted to that section.
Has any warning gone out to campaign operators like FortuneJack?

Cjmoles is a cruelly miserable sycophant and a perverted gossip-mongering dreg of the Internet. He's a loathsome acidly acrimonious mediocrity-afflicted neophyte with glacially slow cognitive faculties. He's a piteously pedestrian fiend and a primitive mattress-soiling excrement stain on a Sumo Wrestler's underpants. How could/would he assist a campaign manager you ask? He couldn't and won't.

Go out and do it. I dare you.
But until you have done so, please don't cry about those that are actually doing something, right now. Because you are not.

Yes.  If a centralized organization assumes the power to censor the content of the forum, then that organization also assumes the power to control specific opinions expressed within that forum.  Not only could they control what opinions are being expressed, they could also control when, where, and how those opinions are expressed....And, a good example of that is your personal instinct to criticize my choice of words. What mechanisms might we put into place to negate (limit) the risks associated with collusive (secretly working together) marketing practices that have the power to manipulate the content of the forum?  That's all....it's just a simple suggested thought exercise that may help avoid the risks associated with centralized "trust" based systems, especially in a venue that relies upon a reputation system that's also running rampant with reputation abuse.  

Spam is a problem, I get it, let's do something to fix the problem, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.  I think we're a smart group of people, and I believe that we can put our minds together to come up with a solution which is not only effective, but also fair.

I understand him perfectly, big words and all.  I would hate to think that we need to constrict our vocabulary so the words don't zoom over people's heads.  I mean hell, people talk WAY over my head when they discuss technical stuff related to bitcoin.  I understand very little of it, but I learn.  And Cjmoles' word choices aren't the most pompous I've seen around here.

I couldn't care what you do on the forum, it's none of my business, but surely if your vocabulary matched your intelligence you could understand that using unnecessarily complex words severely restricts those who can understand your posts.
As a native speaker I'm still unsure if I fully understood what you were trying to say, I'm sure those with English as a second/third/etc language (which I expect is the majority of the forum) would severely struggle to understand or discuss your point of view. Isn't that the point of a forum?
Either way, this is off topic. Apologies.

You got any response to the part of my post that wasn't half of a sentence?

Criticism noted.  Along with confining my posts to specific threads, spreading out my posting activity to encompass a more fluid posting interval, and refraining from voicing an opinion on the blocksize debate, I will also do my best to refine my language to reflect the intellectual ability of the forum's audience....Anything else?

The vast majority of FortuneJack users post like that because of their campaign terms:


It's quite obvious that there's a handful of users with multiple accounts just spewing out this rubbish one after the other in those sorts of threads. I asked cyrus to look into it a while back but never got a response. I'm starting to feel like we should have never created that Gambling Discussion sub in the first place and just locked/trashed everything that wasn't directly about bitcoin gambling because all those Sports Discussion threads are there 100% because of sig spammers, especially with the campaigns that made it mandatory that x amount of posts need to be in the Gambling section.

edit: Here's one list of alleged alts all on ~FortuneJack: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/user-spamming-with-8-9-alts-1540287

A user enrolled in the FortuneJack signature campaign, hence out of the reach of SMAS. FortuneJack neither employs a dedicated signature campaign manager (at least none I know of/publicly recognized), and I'm not sure if their campaign is ran automated (which would most likely mean posts not being read in any way before them paying for those).

You can report the user/campaign to hilariousandco (reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/signature-campaign-guidelines-read-this-before-starting-or-joining-a-campaign-1684035) or to Cyrus, and check if the situation is enough for giving a warning to the advertiser.

Check this post history out https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/shadobitz-432902

I mean really?  He follows all the sports from Cricket to Basketball and all the leagues in Football?  He's clearly making things up and trying to pretend he follows all those sports.  Can't a mod or someone tell the campaign manager to control their campaigners and tell them to quit spamming?

I cannot understand what the problems with this in it's current state are.
From that paragraph of needlessly complicated words and pseudo-intellectualism (can I do it too?) I think I gathered that you are worried that this list will be abused for personal gain/grudges. In which case, there is a very simple fix - don't associate yourself with any of the people taking part in this list and their campaigns if you do not agree with the way the SMAS list (and by extension their campaigns) are ran.
This list isn't forum endorsed, and I doubt it will ever be. There are multiple campaigns available that are not run by Lauda, Lutpin or Yahoo; if you do not agree with them, the way that they think or the way they deal with things, stay away from them.

Don't use the list? As far as I understand this list is no different to how one of the campaign managers involved with SMAS would simply deny a user from participating in their campaigns, instead just putting them in a list to save any issues with having to recheck. Obviously, if the list began to become more widely used throughout signature campaigns this could become more of a problem. Currently, it isn't.
Don't worry about it.

I agree...However, if those involved didn't show a propensity to engage in aggressive marketing policies and collusive recruitment practices, it would be a more legitimate organization in my mind.  Centralized lists, such as this, maintained by pseudonymous entities are easily corruptible and need mechanisms put in place to check the imbalances....I'm not here to FUD the concept, nor those involved, but I do have concerns regarding the motivations that drive it.  Spamming may be a problem, I agree....but collusive rings of anonymous thugs who promote, encourage, or otherwise condone reputation abuse is far more consequential in my mind....That's all.  What mechanisms might we put in place to offset those risks?  There has to be some form of remedy.  Right?

Nowhere; no one. It's on a case-by-case basis for each reply though generally mega-thread replies are just spam.


No - it is my personal opinion that choosing to post in a thread where there are hundreds of redundant replies is not useful to the forum. You can try to argue that you're answering a question or adding more information, but in reality, we all know that it's completely pointless to reply in the thread since probably every little bit of information has already been squeezed out of the dried husk of a "discussion" that is left.


What do you mean?


The campaign manager, the board moderators, the global moderators, the admins.


The leading authority in the signature campaigns the managers are regulating, yes. If there is any conflict, a reply can be made if given proper justification.


This small group manages a variety of campaigns. The campaigns are managed at their discretion. If they think that you are shitposting/spamming, then you will be removed. It's as simple as that. Conflicts of interest are bound to happen, but you can't prevent that without enslaving the entire forum.


These campaign managers are pooling together under a common interest - to fight against spam. There shouldn't be anything negative about it. Besides, if campaign managers manage the campaign through their own discretion. If there's an issue with that, then simply join a different campaign. After all, if all the managers here trust each other, that's their choice - and they can moderate accordingly.

Cjmoles:  You can do whatever you like within the rules of this forum.  This thread has to do with campaign managers cutting down on shitposting, which they are entitled--and in my opinion,  should--do.  Does that sound reasonable?  These shitposters have gotten out of hand.

So....that's what this is about.  Where do I find this list of acceptable threads and permitted replies?...and who maintains this list?  Is that "unspoken" list of permitted threads and responses something that the SMAS syndicate controls exclusively or is there a deeper level of censorship here?  And, I know that most campaigns have a minimum post requirement, but I was unaware that SMAS also requires short responses....I learned something.  Who is in charge of deciding what thread is useful and what questions are permissible?  Is the SMAS organization's opinion the leading authority on that subject, or will other opinions be allowed without retaliation? 

To summarize my position, I don't think that one small group should be allowed to dictate which thread gets bumped and which thread gets ostracized, especially when there are obvious conflicts of interest....That sort of behavior leads to corruption, even if corruption wasn't already the motivating factor.

Fair enough.  Thanks for the clarification, and possibly it is my misreading regarding the forum's policy about the number of accounts that are allowed.