Topic: Temp Sig Bans please - For a new kind of Campaign (Read 892 times)

I completely agree with this. A user who posts so badly is needed to have some rehabilitation and letting the user realize what he did, Giving chance ain't bad right?

Even moderators/staff are giving chance to the members who did something wrong or by not abiding the rules here in this forum.

The level of offenses is actually fair for me, The years of hard work that the user gave to his/her accounts can be justifiable.
I didn't experience being temporary ban myself here in this forum but I know the level of offenses is quite fair if I were the one who is in the position.

It would be a good thing if yahoo could give recommendations to staff. He's already reviewing these people and it should be easy for him to evaluate them. The biggest shitposters should be sent to an administrator for a review and if he confirms he should get a 7 day ban.

This would be a fair warning because you have to agree that cryptotalk has the worst of the worst among its members.

Did you notice how fast the list of banned users is growing? It's amazing.

Generally I don't agree with signature ban of every one banned from Cryptotalk campaign. But I think temporary signature ban can be effective. When a user is temporary banned, at least he is warned about the quality of his posts and he can be permanently banned, if the behavior doesn't change.  

It is easy to check post quality if one campaign has only 25 or 50 slots in total, but if that campaign opens for 300 slots like Cryptotalk (that figure gave days ago) and will keep rising over days, I think it requires decent time, efforts, and good skills from manager to check, ban bad posters and clean the forum by stopping shitposters earning money from their boring nonsense posts.
Temp signature ban is just short-term solution, and they will come back with Cryptotalk or other campaigns when their signature temporary bans expired.

Banning them would be a little bit too harsh IMO, but reviewing each of those posters for a signature ban would be completely fair.
I think it's a great punishment for low-quality posters, it immediately hits them where it hurts.

Btw, I'm talking about a temporary sig ban, like mentioned in the OP, 30 days should do the trick.
They'll either give up or change their ways, in any case it sends a really strong message to would-be-spammers.

do we really need the forum to ban these users?
they are already being kicked out of any campaign with a manager that looks at their post history since most of them are obvious low quality posters. so practically they are banned without the forum intervention.
the only problem would be when there is a low quality campaign itself where the manager is some ICO scammer who doesn't care or one with automated payments in which case the campaign itself should be banned, like what theymos did with yobit a while ago.
in other words the problem should be solved at the source, it would be easier and requires less work.

I used that list as it was a running tally, of people currently banned from the campaign and many were still wearing the signature. Considering at the time I fell down a rabbit hole as one of the weak unhealthy ones wandered into a thread I was a part of. I then followed the grouped trail. While compiling proof and evidence before making wild accusations would find it to be wasted effort for a few. Obviously I don't expect the Admins to just take anybody's word for it.. sorry but we do still have to trust them... they can review the list against the reports submitted. There weren't many but all the posts I reported came back good.

We do know that good reports against users for spam, plagiarism, should count as proof they are violating the guidelines/rules everyone can see and should follow.

What milk are you looking for? I get it you don't like a lot of people but, that is a very broad stroke, which only detracts from your point. Stop using a paint roller when a brush will do.

Personally I felt a Ban would be harsh. A sig ban to most of these users is like a fine. Worse yet like being suspended from work. I'm not on the frontlines managing these folks, so I can only imagine what Yahoo sees in a week especially now. So I understand why he may want to up the anti, I just like to see progressive steps. Like losing your monetization but having the ability to participate. Not everyone will, but  a full on Ban can detract the few that might.  I have no idea what information about this campaign and it's total participants is out there, but I'm thinking this is one of the largest Campaigns ever run on the forum, by number of users.

It was just a thought. Seeing as nothing has happened in regards to this. The problem must not be anywhere near as bad as it seems.

Maybe the Albert Einstein quote will motivate you and inspire you to keep on trying the good thing.

I doubt a formal sig ban is actually necessary. Most of these posters are so staggeringly hopeless they'll never get into any conventionally run campaign that has properly considered applications.

I would be looking into booting any campaign that had automated sign ups but I can see why that might be further than the folks running the forum want to go. All the same that's what breeds the drippiest shit.

This is not a randomly ban on participants. A ban, if there is, comes from bad posts of participant and from strictly management of manager to check post quality, time between posts. Randomly bans mean outstanding posters can be banned randomly and arbitrarily. It does not make sense and not what the campaign under yahoo's management will go forward.

The previous campaign of Yobit went like this. Bad posters who wear Yobit signature and made spam, low quality, off-topic posts, then were reported by community, would consequently temporarily banned with disabled signature, too. Only made bad posts and reported, if not they were fine (without bans).

Self-spam, then indirectly self-ban. 

You had participated in a campaign which has hired yahoo62278 as quality checker. He checks the quality of posts and has the right to decide based on his own criteria. This is same as any other campaign in the forum which the manager has the right to remove any participant. In cryptotalk campaign, Yahoo62278 is not the manager, but he has the right to remove everyone as Yobit has asked him.
 
Here is Burst-posting definition by Yahoo62278

Instead of sig bans I would suggest to flip this around and require a small amount of earned merit (e.g. 2 merits in last 12 months) to display a signature, in addition to any existing rank requirements. This would take care of dormant farmed accounts (well, the crappiest of them anyway) and would leave enough room for campaigns to improvise with posting limits and other rules.

Yes, I know this has been suggested probably a million times before and is unlikely to happen. I can still dream though.

No need to sig ban those banned yobit participants, most of them will go back to hibernation once they found out they are banned from the campaign...

The effect of temp sig ban and temp ban has no difference, except if sig ban would be longer...

There's really nothing wrong with paid signatures, it's just like doing what one ordinarily does daily,  that's logging into the forum and 'discussing' with other users either about bitcoin, the forum, altcoins etc, but earning a little BTC in the process.But the problem is with some users, such as majority of them on that blacklist, who forgot the actual reason why such privilege was put in the first place, which is not to hinder the discussions, nor make them look 'stupid' due to the intent with which they now post, just to earn and not to corroborate the ideas of others in the discussion.

Yahoo's list may not be the most comprehensive, neither is he expecting other campaigns to simply buy into it, it just makes things easier and leaves us with the ease of looking into such users and making our own judgement.

Although, the list does make it easier for us to see who's been identified to be spamming by the community that doesn't mean everyone on that list deserves a signature ban like Yahoo states. Every campaign is going to have different criteria, and some campaigns could potentially have stricter guidelines than the actual forum.

Last update of Suchmoon's was in 29th sep,now three days passed so atleast the figure of total participants were doubled by now (just my guess).

From that we may atleast filter 30-50 participants (just my guess as well).

---

I read something of cryptotalk now they also having rewards for posting on their website and 1 btc rewards for a person who make more number of post until end of this month.So this time also they were here to make short term buzz about cryptotalk.

I am really impressed by the numbers and stats shared by you and few other users on this forum. Just curious to know how you extract all this data ? Do u have some sort of scripts which automatically extract this data. If possible, you can start a new thread where you teach us how all this is done. 

I dont like all paid sigs. but dont ban user just because one camp.-manager kicked them out. too much power in the hands of the camp-manager.

I wouldn't count on it: Look at suchmoon's thread: Out of the first 150 usernames, only 36 have more than 10 earned Merit, and only 11 have more than 50 Merit.
Although Merit alone doesn't provide conclusive evidence on individual post quality, I think it's pretty clear only a few (maybe 10%, probably less) of the participants have good posts. If the rest is eliminated just like they would have been eliminated in any other Bitcoin paying signature campaign, Yobit can actually end up with some good quality users.

You should take into account that the enrollment is automatic here, so it's not normal members who are participating, but mainly people who don't care about bitcointalk, they just want the bounty of the campaign.