Topic: Spam Sections (Read 995 times)

You are right that a certain user should not apply if they are not capable of posting into boards that they are not familiar with but  based on my understanding what welsh is trying to point out is that you shouldn't also stop posting into boards that you are somehow comfortable to. As long as you can meet the requirements that your campaign requires you that is pretty reasonable.

I have seen none from any legit campaigns that removed somebody by posting into boards based on his/her habbit that is not counted to the certain campaign where the user is currently enrolled as long as again the user meets the campaign requirements.

You're absolutely right. I remember writing a thread about this issue titled; [Guide] Factors to consider before joining paid signature campaigns and what you just suggested above was highlighted as one of those factors. Most applicants don't care about this though, that's why i appreciate quality managers that take time to review applicants post history before accepting them into their managed campaign.

A popular example is the campaign manager @yahoo62278, hardly before you see him employ an inactive poster on the gambling boards for any of his gamble related campaigns. I know this because I have been affected once after been inactive for sometime and apply for his campaign although my post quality is decent, got rejected and I'm positive the reason was due to me not been inactive for the last 2weeks on that particular board before applying for that campaign. Someone who was very active than I got offered the slot although my application was before his and i applaud that decision regardless I was affected.

We can't stop those dumb people from applying on the campaigns but we can definitely restrict them from being on that campaign if it has quality management.And obviously they are going to get selected on any campaigns that pays off in bitcoin if they are local boards unless they have some technical skills of cryptos and high merit counts.

Users should read rules of campaigns that they are interested in, before applying. One of requirements that they should consider is which boards in which posts accepted and/or there are posts required in special boards, such as gambling, local boards. If they are not familiar with gambling boards, and have never posted in gambling boards, it is better to do not apply. Altering posting behaviors and trying to post in unfamiliar boards might make posters looks dumb by their non-sense posts, somehow.

You should start pointing out names, it is quite hard to identify this one because as far as I am seeing most of the higher paid signature participants are actually posting a quality ones rather than to those who are paid quite lower. It is also not good to try posting about how low the quality posts are based on your point of view. Are you relatively saying that the one who's been managing the "High Paid Campaign" is ineffective?

There are actually very few discussions in there that are somehow good so do not discourage all not to post there if they are getting paid for it. That is completely irrational.

I don't think they need to avoid posting in Altcoin Discussion. I wouldn't change my habits just to get paid more, and I definitely do post in sections that don't get paid. For example serious discussion, but I'm not obsessed with hitting the maximum posts that I can get paid for, and I often don't even do half of that since becoming a moderator. Point being, I don't think just because you're in a signature campaign you should be altering your behavior, and avoid posting in sections that you would normally. Its the campaign managers job to decide whether they pay you or not for posting in certain sections.

No healthy discussion you say and you think the Bitcoin discussion, Gambling and Trading discussion board is better?, even the economy board is getting affected. No board is spam free and there are decent (quality) discussion in all board. A quick sign to identify a discussion that doesn't need generic response are the numbers of replies on that topic. Being a frequent visitor to the Alternative section i can testify I have encountered quality discussion that the bitcoin boards can't boost off.

Sure the board is full of spam but so are other boards, you don't discourage members to post there just because they're on high paying campaign. Running away from the spam problem won't solve it.  The healthy discussion on the board are lacking audience due to suggestion like yours, I don't support it.

Signature campaigns usually do not count posts in those sections, so how come users spam there? What's incentive?

If they still spam irrespective of signature campaigns, then the issue is something else, not signature campaigns, which everybody keeps saying.

I partially disagreed!
High-paid campaigns are the most attractive ones in the forum, so they are most competitive. Applicants have to fight each other and with very high rejecting-odds,
It is just beginnings, after accepted to join, if participants made low quality posts, or good/ high quality posts at early weeks, then slowly and gradually decrease their post quality over weeks, they will be under risks of attacks or reports from others whom always find for chances to join those campaigns.
They might do reports to campaign managers (through complaints); reports to forum staffs; or even publicly open threads to complain about that.

In fact, there is no doubt that average quality of participants in high-paid campaigns are higher than participants in low-paid campaigns, especially in shit-spamming campaigns.

I definitely agree! Most of the campaigns now, even the high-paying campaigns do have low-quality posters. It's such a disgrace if they're receiving a high payment but their posts are like a newbie. Those participants that are on paying campaigns should avoid posting in altcoin discussion. There are no healthy discussions produced on that section, more like it's just a spam area. Most of the campaigns require to have a constructive post but still, some participants aren't aware of that rule.

Altcoins signature campaigns are trash and most of them are scams. I doubt that the altcoin discussion will be managed and organized unless they implement another rule or system to avoid shitposting on mentioned discussions.

If you see the repetitive or useless topics you can report OP to the moderator so the whole thread will be vanished with all the spam replies on it.And also the users who need to lock the topics if the replies get reluctant on it.

Trading Discussion and Altcoin Discussion section are getting the shelter of spammers because of that persons who are continuously creating new topic which was previously posted. I don't say it is 100% same topic but the main focus of these post are quite same. So some people are persistently creating same topic and people are continuously answering the same things on these topic.

The current problem we are facing is many of the campaign managers aren't running their campaigns effectively. The majority of the altcoin campaigns are very poorly managed, and let just about anyone join them with no sort of moderation at all. The Bitcoin ones seem to be generally managed a little better overall, and we all know who the good managers of the forum are.

In a perfect world we would have good campaign managers for all the campaigns, but that's never going to be a reality unless restrictions are placed on posting signature campaigns.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Also what is the difference between the serious campaigns and non-serious campaign ?

The fact is that many few good campaigns do pay for all the posts including P&S and off topic too. You can post constructive in these sections also and more importantly if the campaign manager is reputed and does his responsibility well, it is hard for spammers to remain in the campaign.

But is that really happening right now? cause to be very honest  I find more posts in the PolSci much worthy to discuss than those from the Bitcoin Discussion. Or Is it maybe because I'm just keeping an eye to those threads that interests me.

What you were talking about really are a possibilities but as what I am currently seeing (There are still more nonsense threads being added in the Bitcoin Discussion Sections and even economics is much worse.

Wherever posts counted for bounties, campaigns, there are spammers. Serious campaigns often do not count posts in P & S section, but shit bounties count them all. They don't care where their supporters post. They just use stupid bot to count posts, or manually check posts in profile pages, and don't care to visit post history to see where supporters post (with or without signature display), and post-contents.
Another plus point that P & S section can be abused to spam is signature enabled to display.  

I am not aware that Politics & society section are more spammy lol, Maybe because of those new idiots who started creating a lot of new threads but when you are going to look at the bitcoin discussion section. Most of the topics are repeated and getting ridiculously swarmed up. So I personally can't agree that the polsci section are more toxic than those sections that were stated above.

We all know that the main reason why those certain sections are having a huge trash posts because of the campaign and mostly polsci post is not counted.

Having seen the mentality of many signature spammers and the rhetoric that they spout in the topics regarding bounties, it seems that to many 'bounty hunters' that they realize tokens can fail but will participate with no regard for the actual prospective success of the project. Rather, it's more like them gambling on the result of the tokens. Signature spammers with this mentality contribute greatly to the spam since all they truly want is to jump in quickly, post their quota and leave with the roll of the dice. When it comes to social media campaigns that are confined to the bounty section, this is less of an issue since the section itself is basically created to contain all the generated spam.

Even the higher-ranking members will post on the "does Legendary posting ANN" threads will say something asinine about trusting a project more because there's a Legendary member posting the thread.

Sometimes, the threshold between scam and non-scam are vague. There are always efforts to do personal/ institutional assisinations by scam accusation, or whatsoever. Bittrex got attacks, Binance got attacks, and Bitmex or Bitfinex too. Fake scam accusation can turn into active Flags if scammers successfully trapped DT members. It might be rare probability, but we can not exclude such probability.
What if, a project get active flags, their participants got red tags; then months later, their active flag turn into inactive?
Will DT members spend time to remove neg tags on that project's participants?
I doubt that DT members will do that, especially in case number of participants are huge.
Let's see what Yobit did. Only theymos' manual handle solve issues, but there is noone got red tags due to this. Yobit is a shady exchange, but yeah, admin, global moderators, or DT members have reasons to not tag anyone supports Yobit. Only people who spam and hit threshold of total spam reports got bans from admin.

Are there anyone will tag other people who support Bitcoin Cash, ie.? And, yes, even there are scam projects, people still have rights to wear which kind of signature they want, as there is no restrictive rule on this, as of writing. How to prove that they wear signature as free supports or wear signature to get payments? No one can prove if scam companies really want to run their shady promotions with acceptable level, not massively like what Yobit did.

I would agree that a project failing doesn't mean it's a scam. These are called investments for a reason, however this of course means that a project stuck to its promises, and it simply failed because it wasn't as successful as they originally planned. This is where the area gets gray though. What if the intentions of the project was to scam from the beginning, and we have evidence of that, but there's no evidence of the project manager being involved. I would probably lean on the side of innocent until proven guilty on that one, but this is why I believe putting your name to a project that you aren't personally involved in is a pretty risky move because you don't know the intentions of these projects. Managing a signature campaign is different, you're effectively promising to pay the participants for advertising the service as long as you carry out that you aren't really tied to the project, unless you're willingly advertising a scam project which again is a different scenario.