Topic: [SMAS] Signature Managers against Spam (light version) - page 17. (Read 100724 times)

I think I was unclear.

I was agreeing with marlboroza and referencing the posts he was referencing, not his actual post. (although I should mention his sig campaign, vdice.io , has scam written all over it)

Lol, I didn't consider that spam at all.  It was actually a good synopsis of how shitty the forum is becoming.   People don't read mich because of sig campaigns.  Imagine if someone at a homeless shelter started paying people for every sentence they uttered.   Therr would be a whole lot of blah blah blah blah blah, and no one would listen or care because it'd all be crap.

Edit:  Jesus, I totally read that the wrong way.  I apologize for being an idiot.

I think if everyone who makes a post that's obvious spam like marlboroza's example should be blacklisted permanently from sig campaigns.

Yeah, they will bitch and cry bloody murder from tons of alt accounts.  But there will be less spam.

Zero tolerance - without notice.

I'm adding SMAS to my lending service: no loans for blacklisted. I will use achow's pricer to check the accounts. Hope it helps to fight spam. I suggest other lenders to do the same as well.
~Gun

SMAS idea is great, but this topic is pointless. You guys should do this somewhere private or lock/unlock this topic with only updates of spammers, I don't know why did you let this become discussion?

I don't want to be a bitch, but look at this topic for example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/where-to-report-scamming-casino-sites-1694484

Now, let see. OP asked question, joksim replied, than op ask another question and mrcash replied and I added few more things.

This is interesting, user27 quote first post and answer to move topic to scam accusation section, than U2 comes and say OP should move topic to scam accusation topic, even c/p my post, than bitmax come with nonsense to discuss scam accusation in marketplace, than thegodfather came to tell to move post to scam board, than Kotone came to say he has to move topic to scam accusation board, than numanoid come to say they are signature spammers, than ardiprabowo came to say he should move his topic to scam accusation.  

Thanks god OP listens to numanoid and he locked topic. (as i said this is only example)

Oh, i found another one https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/john2231-558513 bitmixer signature did someone read his posts?

Oh read this one too https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16945085  and https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16994098 who is running bitsler signature campaign anyway   revo is obviously multiacc spammer?

And back to OP, as I said, SMAS is great thing, but you need moderators to do their job too, to lock threads when they are solved and to mute people for several days when they are spamming!

Cheers!

Although being more strict doesn't always make the majority happy (most of the time it doesn't) it will improve the quality of the forum. Would you rather have a more relaxed signature campaign manager or a more strict one?

Even though we currently probably have a middle-ground, I still think having managers cracking down more often is favorable for the forum in general.

I think things would be worse if they held a similar "standard" as you do

No. I trust the judgement of others managers and expect them to withhold a similar standard as me. However, keep in mind that my campaign is unique. Since I can't deny enrollment, I can only apply someone else's blacklist afterwards. In other words, you'd get reviewed anyways.

Nope, no such plans in place, i suggested something like this earlier in the thread

hello Lauda, I have some question here, If the user is listed on the black list by a certain manager, Is all the manager belongs to SMAS will still review all the account listed by that manager or not? Because all managers have different verdict in each situation, Are you planning to build like council or court so that every manager will evaluate the user that has been suspected that committing violation and to be fair.. Thanks

You've missed my point. The way that posts get counted is not really a rule (i.e. X characters minimum). I'm talking more about, e.g. 'no alts', 'posting in specified sections' and so on. One should consciously join a campaign and follow all of its rules.

No, it is not. It is our list, ergo determined by our rules. You forgot to add a 'IMO' at the end of that sentence. Just because you disagree with it, that doesn't make it universally wrong. Anyhow, this is why there is a short review period. In case that someone was really bothered by getting blacklisted, they could just send their campaign manager a PM (which would be a sign of a genuine person). However, usually they rush and apply into other campaigns (which is not a good sign).

---

It seems this thread is ripe for a self-moderated replacement.

Well why don't you think about it like this, the guy who was blacklisted because he wasn't posting in enough sections but might not speak very good English so not posting a lot out of the Russian sections means he won't be posting a lot in a language that is not his native language (e.g., few/no shit posts). BTW there are roughly 15 subsections in the Russian board, most of which appear to be very active. Also, bitmixer's (the specific company's signature campaign he was banned from) business is most likely wanting business from Russian members, so it makes little sense to exclude non English speaking users (especially those that don't speak languages heavily associated with spammers).

It doesn't make sense to you why people who sign up for a signature campaign in a language they can barely speak get blacklisted for making short posts that are barely legible? 

you should go ahead and read your posts, you arent making any sense

The language doesn't matter, as long as they aren't shit at it.

And yeah, constructive too.

So only english users should get paid for their posts then?
And only long posts are constructive?

I think those are both very good reasons to add them to the list.

It's not black listing them from the forum.  Just from getting paid to post.

If they are only making the post bc they're in a signature campaign, I have no sympathy.

Alot of users are added to the list because their posts are short or because their english is poor, this reasoning is wrong

Are you saying they're being too strict?

I'm not an expert on sig campaigns, but imo (which could change) they would benefit from being way more heavy handed with the bans.  If you're going to get paid to post, don't post shit. (not saying this to anyone in particular) If you post shit, even if it's only semi-shit, you get neg rep and youre done.  It's not like there's any shortage of sig campaign members to choose from, right?  (or is there?)  

Right now way too much of the overall sig campaign money is going to a few shit posters with a ton of accounts.  

Actmyname, my man, that one sailed right over your noodle.  I think QS is saying it is in fact a good thing that peeps with a poor command of English don't post in the English section.   But who knows.  I can't claim to know what QS' s thought processes are, and sarcasm/sardonicism don't get received well on this forum.