Topic: [SMAS] Signature Managers against Spam (light version) - page 20. (Read 100724 times)

Who knows maybe a spammer is just a scenario, which is run by a group due with that they can get something.

If you really want your voices heard, I suggest working together to start the Sig Camp Members Union to protect the rights of anyone who wishes to spam, shitpost or promote unethical businesses as if they were honest.  

lexuz would be a great spokesperson during the first 3 weeks of every month while cjmoles rested up for the fourth,

It's stuff like this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15967038 and this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15645159 which adds credence to the conspiracy theories, and that's the short list.  What are we supposed to think?

same IMO
i never think get an advantage by doing this

You're English literacy is horrible in this post. I can't even understand what you're trying to say here(?). Can you please stop flooding this thread? (you can always PM some of us) If you think that posting here will get you an advantage for getting de-listed, then you are wrong.

Depending on information? the campaign owner can't blame signature managers and signature manager easy to say i don't know why they are not active due i was doing the right thing to manage the campaign.

Can we stop with the useless conspiracy theories? I can't talk for the other managers, but I have a very strong opinion against market manipulation and attempts at bribing me. Not only would they lose the bribe (money), they'd be exposed and possibly sued (depending on information available).

Yes, I've spent 4 years on this forum building up myself so that I can save an additional $10-20 per account sale. Don't you see how absurd this theory is?

That is much better than random half-baked users, which don't give a damn about those campaigns, undermining the rates just to get the job.

This can already happen with every campaign. Not specially relevant to SMAS.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Due this is indenpendent forum so anyone can join signature campaign as long they not break the forum rules. since the forum stands they has put the rules for all members bitcointalk.org
In the terms of business this is not good because you can specify the number of campaign participation or indirectly can say you can reduce the capacity of the ability of the owner of the campaign.
As an example : campaign A  the owner can pay 600 members of the signature campaign and campaign B  the owner only can pay 50 members of the signature campaign. it's easy for you made something deal in back to make campaign B can compete with campaign A " in the case both of campaign have same business"

How can you can make campaign B compete with campaign A "easy for you all to put not active member in campaign A"

We spend additional, unpaid time on this. Running a lazy ass, half-managed campaign would be more easy and faster.
This doesn't get you an advantage (if all, you get a big group of haters, don't believe it? Read the thread and related threads).
[/quote]
Indeed, for currently not got paid for SMAS due this project is still in the stage of looking to get trust but in the future after all under the control of the three of you there is a lot of money easy all of you can get
1. buy and sell account
2. put high rates as campaign manager
3. selected who can join the signature campaign or easy for you give priority to your friends to join in sig campaigns.

And also by the times goes with this way open to other bitcoin forum compete with bitcointalk because by manipulation scheme the member of forum will leave the forum.

what I did is for saved the forum, i'm not saying spammers right and i'm not saying what signature managers do are wrong. we must work together, the facts the forum need traffic due that's the way to make the forum get money.

in this case no one was harmed[/quote]

It doesnt matter what theories you trow out there man. Anyone could manipulate it, moderator or not. For example say shorena is appointed a 3rd party moderator, whats to keep shorena from striking a deal with us and having us add xxx account to a list to buy cheaper?(not saying this is gonna happen, just a for example)

Basically, you trust our judgement or you dont. We are not saying to all other managers use our list or else. Theyre free to add whomever they wantr to a campaign. The users on the list just wont be in our campaigns.

If any of you bothered to read hilariousandco's post about signature campaigns, youd see that our list is very beneficial to other campaign managers. They will have an advantage of knowing 300+ users not to hire thus helping to save the company they represent from getting removed from the forum.

Just my opinion here but this is a good thing for everyone. We know or at least i know this will not stop all the spammers. This will however take away the incentive for certain accounts to even post as theres a load of farmers out there making hundreds of dollars a week from sig campaigns. If theyre not being paid to post, they simply wont post. The list will keep growing and growing.

These accounts also are not permanently on the list either. Its an incentive for people to change their habits. If you wish to earn money from a signature campaign, then try to be a constructive user for the forum. We arent asking for novels. If you make the list, wait out your thirty days(or join a campaign that will accept you), but also try to improve your quality.

Enlarginig the group didn't work out previously, hence the smaller attempt this time.

Actually, it's easy to find out (for me at least). How is that related to who I ban for spamming?

This is independent from forum moderation and should stay this way. We're an effort started from signature campaign managers.

We spend additional, unpaid time on this. Running a lazy ass, half-managed campaign would be more easy and faster.
This doesn't get you an advantage (if all, you get a big group of haters, don't believe it? Read the thread and related threads).

The lists are pretty long to check them all, but if you send me a few picked at random I will take a look at the accounts, write my opinion about their posts and what I think they could improve.

Someone that we can trust and is active on the forum (especially in meta) like yourself, there are many users on the forum to pick from

Who would you say qualifies as independent?

So dont voice my concerns then? There isnt a fool proof solution for this problem but having somebody independent will go a long way, read up on the division of power and corruption and you will see where im coming from

Right. What's to prevent from independent reviewers from being bribed? What's to prevent them from colluding with us? Nothing. The best that can be done is to keep everything as transparent and as objective as possible.

---

Unless you have a good solution, voicing such speculative concerns doesn't really help. I'm sure that the participating members are aware of potential problems. You can always contact us via PM.

Who said this had to be done over a short period of time? if you stretch the process over a few weeks, most people wont realize

For transparent we need moderator take a part or you can send to them the ban list.

as i said before may be this is the way all three of you to make a good reputation as a campaign manager. we never know what price you get from manage a signature campaign if this still goes all of you get many an advantage from it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say?

A list of people that get added to my blacklist is published each week (although not all previous ones are available; I could keep them from now on if that helps). It's all transparent. Unless you are not looking into this, or you're looking the other way it should be somewhat easy to spot. An account gets listed, then sold, then unlisted in a short amount of time. That would be somewhat obvious IMO.

no-one would notice if you dont add a name to the list, what you just said does nothing to solve the problem i just laid out

Simple *fix*: Keep a transparent list of the users that were either de-listed/un-banned. I'm not sure if Yahoo does that yet. However, the only people that have been delisted so far are those that asked for reviews or have been mistakenly banned (i.e. only in my case as I had no unban option given from Bitmixer until a while ago).