Topic: Solutions for the spam problem? (Read 1774 times)

Oh so something changed.......Funny wasn't it him claiming that nothing will ever change ?

Blazed wasn't the one who removed him. It was Tomatocage and OgNasty. Those two excluded The Pharmacist from their trust lists thus resulting The Pharmacist to be removed from DT. 

This is what i thought about something that can improve the trust system.



I got the idea from movie “world war z” where there is a board of people in a country who think there will be no zombie apocalypse and there is one person assigned to think otherwise and they ended up making a wall to isolate the country. So, i guess it is a good thing if some dt want to leave a tag to someone, there must be a counter from other dt who think otherwise, because dt member job is not just giving negative trust, but also a positive trust, so in a case, we need two different perspective. The bad thing for this idea is, there will be a lot of work to decide some cases.
I got the idea with spammer tagged as orange and scammer tagged as red from this thread, and for spammer, i guess it is good to add a time penalty, and after the penalty is over and they still spam, the penalty time will be lnger for him.
And i suggest the green dt member and the process of decision making is in a secret time and place, like in a PM not on a new thread or something public.

I agree with your opinion ,,
So,sure for the newbie still have to learn again for spam problems ,,
(Better be warned first, so that the beginner can learn his mistakes, and the future can be better than before)

I would just ignore it most of the cases. I'd consider some blatant lies (falsely accusing us as scammers, for example) as untrustworthy, and therefore could deserve negative trust.

Yes, unfortunately. I was hoping he posts about that. I may insist after a while when Meta isn't full of threads about Merit.

I didn't expect you to, especially not this quickly. I wasn't talking about that though/I wasn't giving out negative ratings based on that recently either. I did it for a bit in late 2017, but quickly withdrew those.

Alright, so we do agree that neutral feedback is appropriate in labeling someone as such. How would you handle a retaliatory negative rating that is completely false, other than ignoring it?

The 1st isn't and hasn't been working for a long time due to several reasons. The 2nd will take some time before we can evaluate its effect. The 3rd, unfortunately, may never see a comment from theymos let alone get implemented.

---

@ibminer?

I haven't changed my opinion: I think negative trust should be given to scammers or untrustworthy users, including spammers who try to defraud signature managers or others with their posts, but not because of the fact they spam but because they try to defraud. I know that may be subjective.

Neutral feedback can be used for comments, such as "Spammer" or other useful information unrelated to trustworthiness. I don't see any issues about using neutral trust for this.

Spammer should be controlled by others means: reporting & banning, merit (I hope it does help) or other ideas.

Don't agree. Smart spammers never let their posts being deleted. So your proposal is not good, might not solve the spamming waves in the forum.
I dont know how to fight them more efficiently than merit system, which actually good tool for this purpose.
My recommendation is high qualities posts will usually have more words than shit posts. Hence, how about minimum words per post?

Time to revive this. @EcuaMobi && @ibminer:
Do you find it appropriate to leave feedback in the form of neutral trust for spammers (e.g. "Shitposter.", "Spammer."). There are very different views regarding the trust system. Some feel like feedback is okay to give in almost all cases, while others do not. I'm just curious as to what you two think and whether we could/should be doing it[1].

---

[1] I already did it for a few obvious cases, thus wondering if I should continue or remove those.

ofc, I know that... I just answered to the topic question: "Solutions for the spam problem?"
No signatures = No run to ranks = No spam

Can I suggest another way of pointing out the spammers?
Just add the number of the reported and deleted posts of the user, set a level for a certain amount of deleted posts and you have a working system with minimal effort of implementation. It will increase the work of the moderators for sure, but will keep the forum cleaner.

They would never allow it since their most income comes from ACE .
So Signatures are making them money and thats the reason they like to dominate everything there and try to dictact their own rules to ITO's to increase their profits.
Of course no conflict of interrest since they make everything just based on own benefit

Why should i improve my own standards ?
I just lowered my standards to your and Lauda's level .
Why are you so pissed about it ?
When people got pissed about Lauda's behavior you had no issue even defended Lauda.
So go talk first with Lauda and her gang before you wanna talk with me

Just FORBID signatures. Just it. Spam will be cutted off by 90%
So easy.

Lets talk about your disgusting actions, for a second.
Your trust page reads like a satire account (and I'm talking about the sent ones, not the received ones).
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=355462

Some of the greatest hits of feedbacks you've given:

"Lutpin and Lauda Gang" ~ negative trust to The Pharmacist.
"I don't like him." ~ negative trust to akamit.
"for giving merit in this way" ~ negative trust to klaaas.

Maybe you should start with improving your own standards.

blazed everyone is waiting for you action.You try to sit it out ?

You created garbage you will be treated like garbage

No comment blazed on your disgusting action ?

You guys are totaly out of control and total noobs.
You have no experience with big message boards and spam fighting at all.
What you are doing is destroying and killing a whole messageboard.
Best example is the marketing forum blackhatworld where mods have high noses like you and won't let questioning their decissions.They made some subforums basicly only useable for members with a certain rank to "protect" their members from scammers.
The result is that these subforums are basicly all dead after 3 months because a forum lives from the varity of diffrent users.

You are also pathetic claiming to fight scammers and spammers for the good of the board but are abusing the merit system already yourself giving merit point in your own group circle for shit posts or even single words like "butthead".Giving 50 merit for a post like "butthead" like Lauda did seems to me the best example of your high quality and your pseudo leadership
You have some people here which are the biggest spammers and scammers.Lauda and his group abused and destroyed so many legit accounts its just shocking but the most shocking part is they give a shit about destroying legit accounts.
Most of them even bought themself back in the days accounts as colleteral when lending coins so maybe we should also give them a scammer status.

I'm also shocked since the BCT guideline says clearly selling accounts is allowed and i even asked a mod before trying to buy one for a friend to be able to post pictures on his service thread.
And now i got abused and being called a scammer for following BCT guideline and a Mod's reply.

You are fucking nuts.
I can show you at least 200 people who got wrongly abused who already sent me PM's and everything.

You want to fight spam by destroying legal accounts and giving a fuck about it ?Maybe start with your own main accounts and feel how it is to be abused with false claims.

You know when reading the guideline i was really fascinated how professional it was cause it was layed out so nobody could get abused by such a small snop group like you are


Talking exectly about your abuse


Guideline is clearly saying selling accounts is allowed.So if somebody register and tries to buy an account when reading that guideline you instantly tag him as scammer.
Where did you even fucking posted that buying accounts its prohabited ?There is no fucking sticky at all.
And most important i think the rule of a global moderator is higher than some decissions of some punks who declared themself to fight against spam.

If spammers wanted they could destroy this board so quickly you wouldn't even be able to do anything about it.
They could use Xrumer to flood your board or create a bot with 50 accounts and start abusing the trust rating for each and every account.The possibilities are endless and you think
you will come and handle that by playing sheriff ?
You wanna know what is going to happen ?Smart people will stop posting because of getting tired of you punks always to fear to get a negativ rating since everyone clearly sees how often you abuse it.
It already happened on many messageboards where whole senior communities stopped posting because of punks like you who try to control everything.

The forum main idea was decentralisation of power.What you do is a clearly centralisation of power and even trying to force project managers and ITO's to accept your rules or to be defamed (which is the biggest NO GO i ever read)
I agree the spam needs to be limited but there are other more effectiv ways and most important with your pathetic behavior against community members expecially Lauda abusing massivly the trust system and who proofed many times saying he won't talk to the average guy made you become the problem #1 on this board and not the spam or even scammers.
The trust feedback have been already been abused by you guys so massivly that the admin had to create a new solution after receiving massiv complains since YOU ARE CURRENTLY THE MAIN CANCER ON THIS BOARD with your massiv abuse and not spammers

You are fucking control freaks on a board which tried to be decentralised as much as possible.
Crypto is going Mainstream 2018-19 you want to ban all the noobs which will join this board over the next 2 years or tag them as scammers and spammers?

@blazed you are responsible for the massiv abuse Lauda did with his group and it should be you who should degrate these nuts people who clearly have no understanding of decentralisation but just for self benefit.
You are bassicly responsible that hundreds of legit accounts got destroyed.

Something what the community always tried to prevent at all cost that no innocent member gets ever harmed even if it means having spammers and scammers on board.

@blazed

What did you do to the ones which were not guitly ?
I bet nothing

You totaly lost the main idea of this messageboard on which grounds it was build
And your avatar is a joke based on your acting

I made this one-word post just two days ago. Now tell me: is this spam? Or is this an informative answer reasuring someone on something that I had just explained right before his question?
In case your wondering: my signature doesn't pay for posts under 100 characters. If I would extend my one-word post to more than 100 characters, then it would indeed become spam.

I wonder if there is somebody stupid enough to take that bet on  
Of course they care about the red trust only because it prevents them for earning money, maybe except for this guy....


The merit system is one way of preventing spammers and is not infallible. Some will get through, and we need something to stop the ones that do and the ones that are already "safe" since they achieved higher ranks before this.

I agree that the red tag was not designed for that,  it was something like a drug of last resort that might have some unfortunate consequences and of course EcuaMobi idea sounds pretty good but it has one big flaw, it needs to be enforced on the forum.
Till then....what?