Topic: Why not tag all bounty hunters? - page 2. (Read 607 times)

I'm confused here.  Are you talking to me?  Because if you are, I think you believe I don't think tagging bounty cheaters is a good idea--it is.  I'm referring to the mass-tagging of all bounty hunters simply because they participate in bounties.

I was agreeing with your post, so I don't know where the miscommunication is.

I think I've been guilty of this, but generally I don't reply to a shitpost unless it's to blast it for being idiotic or if there's actually something in it that's coherent and I want to respond to.  Everybody's got their own notion of what constitutes a shitpost, but some of them are so generic and cookie-cutter that nobody could reply to them even if they wanted to.  And sweet jeezus, going through a section like Bitcoin Discussion to report crapola posts is maddening.  I've done it, and it takes a toll on you.

I'm not sure I agree with this.  I don't care about bounty spammers in the Alts ANN board, because I rarely read that board.  If ever.  Like suchmoon said, as long as they stick to the bounty section to report their twitface telescam posts, I don't care.  But when they are caught with multiple alts participating in those bounties, that is a form of scamming.  Not only are they scamming the bounty manager, but they're also scamming other members of the forum who miss out on a spot in the bounty (if there's a quota.)  I know, I know, if they're applying for a bounty, they probably don't deserve my sympathy because they are also spamming newbies.  In the end who cares if it's one spammer with 20 alts, or 20 spammers with no alts?  But we were all newbies at one point, and we all had to learn in one way or another.  If the bounty manager stipulates that no alts are to be enrolled, then cheating that bounty should result in a tag.

On the other hand, I understand and share your concern.  There has been a lot of spamming the trust system recently with pointless tags, which concerns me too.  And any tag on a throwaway account is essentially a throwaway tag.  It doesn't help the forum, and reduces the value of red-tags.  I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think ignoring them is a good one.

The thing is, no matter the method one user thinks is right in handling the issue, it can't be applied by every single user, if we say 'completely ignore', trust me someone is definitely bringing a new case up in the reputation board sooner than later, it is what it is, and it would be nearly impossible for a general consensus to be reached on the matter. The only thing to do is for users to choose that which they consider most helpful for the forum, for users who feel it is best to ignore, then fine, for those who think tagging is the best option, then they can go ahead and do so, but mind you that tagging them indiscriminately would even be an incorrect use of the trust system, and in the long run could be counter-productive.

The forum should ban them (not just posts, ban the shitposters on sight) though, when they spill over to the rest of the forum. Ignoring sounds good in theory, but it requires compliance from everyone, otherwise it's pointless, and such compliance is never going to happen.

I was going through Bitcoin Discussion and other shitboards a few times and reporting all the shitposts (you know, the one-two paragraph garbage about nothing) and problem is not just shitposters themselves but also presumably smart and rational users - some of them with e.g. ChipMixer signatures if that means anything - responding to those shitposts. This perpetuates and legitimizes all the mundane and dumb shit posted by 0-merit copy-pasta Google Translate drones. Can everyone stop doing that? I don't think so.

I don't particularly care about someone who never leaves the Bounties board, they can all rot there.

ignoring bounty cheats with alt accounts won't get any better either.
my thinking, even though it is very likely that they will create a new account, at least they will think about the risks they will get again if they cheat.
they are marked not to be evicted from the forum. they have to realize what they are doing is wrong. if they come again to the forum, they must do it right.
most of the bounty hunters with 100% posts in the bounty thread don't know the forum rules.

I did not find a solution to this problem. but for now, negative tags help bounty managers (who care) to manage the campaigns they create. as well as bounty hunters who do it honestly.

I would in principle agree with you that red tagging everyone is counterproductive and waste of time, but in some cases it's not a bad idea to write neutral feedback if accounts are connected in some way.
Maybe this feedback should show link to topic with more information and connections other members found, and it will help managers and other members when they investigate their posting history.

I wouldn't put all bounties in one basket, and you should be more specific saying this applies mostly for worthless shitcoin bounties.
There could be bounties that pay in Bitcoins, maybe some puzzle solving, or completing other tasks unrelated to altcoins.
If you want to address issue of altcoin bounties than I think you should talk more with managers who organize them.

You can always ignore them, and I am using that ignore button for many members, but I can say the same thing for any spammers.
Why would you or anyone else engage in conversation with someone who is posting rinse repeated spam questions over and over again?
I asked other members to stop doing that in other sections, but I guess they prefer getting paid for conversing with spammers sometimes.

So, how would you classify a bounty hunter who uses alts to cheat? And taking more than he should? If that isn't an untrustworthy character, I'm not sure what is.

What do you propose we do about bounty cheaters, BTW? Because you believe tagging them isn't doing any good.

Meaning the Bounty manager doesn't trust members who cheat in their campaign, so they deserve red trust.

---

If i consider what @LoyceV said, Neutral is fair to members who cheat in Bounty campaign, but every manager should create a blacklist book for cheaters, archives for the upcoming Bounty campaign, just like @actmyname did.
Unfortunately most managers don't have a blacklist, maybe the reason is not enough time, trust red is easy to see and doesn't take much time.

Not for nothing, but tagging as many bounty hunters as humanly possible was essentially what actmyname (whatever happened to him) and I were doing just prior to the merit system being introduced, as a way to discourage shitposting.  You'll remember at the time that there weren't any effective tools for cleaning up the forum, so the trust system was all we had. 

Theymos has already given his opinion on how negative trust should be handed out, and I don't think he'd approve of gang-tagging bounty hunters indiscriminately.  Granted, I'd be more than happy to join in on such a tagging party, but 1) it goes against the guidance Theymos has given, and 2) as you said, it would probably be ineffective.  It might be a little bit effective, but I seriously doubt it would discourage many of these hardcore bounty participants, and it'd just be a pain in the ass for whoever decided to do the tagging.

Then there's that.  And it all comes down to how the trust system should be used.  You really shouldn't just give negative trust to a bounty hunter simply because that's what they're doing on the forum.  I get that they're spammers (not just on bitcointalk, as you pointed out), but red trust should be reserved for truly untrustworthy members.

Why tag everyone? There are still a few good people who follow the rules; nobody is a criminal until they are caught. If they spam Twitter and Facebook, that's none of our business; it's up to the social media companies to deal with them. Our only concern is keeping the forum clean and making sure no one is using multiple accounts to cheat, and whatever the projects turn out to be in the future is still none of our business.

Ignoring them completely is the same as saying the DT system shouldn't exist; honestly, if tagging and reporting them hadn't been effective, the forum would be in a much worse state than it is now; no system works perfectly, but as far as I know, tagging them has been helpful.

Not all one-liner replies are spam, and not all walls of text are of high quality; there are some questions that deserve a one-liner response, and you just drop and go; writing a wall of text isn't always necessary.

Theymos would never agree to that, because I believe the bounty board is the most active part of the forum (I could be wrong) and contributes more to forum activities.

Since forums are basically more concerned with fighting spammers than scammers, it would make more sense to just flag fraudulent participants from the signature bounty. I often see them littering the forum environment with one-line replies in some of their favorite sections (altcoins), if I'm right it's because they have to meet the post quota of all their accounts.

I don't know the answer to how we can effectively sort that section out. You could probably put ten moderators in there, and they wouldn't be able to sort out all the spam. I'm not sure how I feel about tagging every single bounty hunter, I'm sure there's legitimate cases among them, and it would be unfair to issue a blanket strategy which would effect them. Although, I will admit the vast majority are definitely abusing the system, and don't really offer the forum all that much. 

I've gotten a lot more strict as time passes in moderating my sections, although I must admit the bounty section in particular is a completely different kettle of fish. I'm basically trying to go through the entire section of the ones I moderate, and effectively try, and remove the backlog of spam we've had over the years. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's even possible with the bounty section since bounty sections aren't really all that effected by the bumping changes theymos introduced, which actually did impact the announcement sections quite some bit. So, there's a ton more work to be done in that section.

I don't think it'll ever get implemented, as it's rather restrictive. However, I'd like to see some restrictions put in place where only x merit or activity can post in the bounty section. That way, you'd reduce the endless alt accounts, unless of course they build up over time.

The thing is with email verification it's easily bypassed. I mean, these users are doing the captcha's required to register/login so they don't mind creating a temporary email. If you're suggesting that we disallow temporary emails, that's a potential privacy concern, which effectively punishes the legitimate users, as well as those that might be malicious. Therefore, I don't think that's the best approach to this.

I agree with you here, even though you may have wanted to say this politically correct. I would say that the biggest blame here comes from bounty managers. They try to have as many participants as possible, but the quality is completely neglected. even ignoring the negative feedback on the profiles.
somewhere in the past (at the time of ICO), there were some mass campaigns that brought in good money and based on that, all managers took over the template. the same thing has been driving for five years, just different names for "projects".

so the question is if you are one of the top groups and start a business, would run a bounty program like these currently running?

I'd say red tag for bounty hunters is important when they're participating an ongoing campaign where the campaign doesn't accept red tagged accounts. For sure it will make their work useless since the manager wouldn't distribute the coin to them.

I have been thinking this for a while, why not all the managers hire all the scam busters to hunt the cheaters on their campaign. It can be a private group on telegram, so the hunters wouldn't know, after the bounty ended, those cheaters wouldn't get a bounty distribution and get red tagged too.

Instead of red tagging all bounty hunters, just remove the bounty section and all DTs wouldn't wasting their time to tag each accounts.

The only reason to discuss them here and tag some is in case the "break out" of newbie / no or almost no good posts and try to become a 'real' user.
If they decide to build one of their alts up a bit to get into a real signature campaign or do something else with it even if it's selling something it puts up a roadblock.
Cheating and multi-accounting in all the bounty crap does not really hurt anyone except the crap bounties. But, tagging them and hopefully getting them banned does keep them from crawling out of their swamp to drag the slime here.

-Dave

There was a suggestion I wanted to bring up but I saw no need to bring it up for people to discuss about it. I have noticed some people are just having alts, create new accounts, spam or having scam attempt, their account can be banned or their attempt scam thread is deleted, later you will see same thing again repeatedly. I was thinking why this forum do not make email mandatory because it will reduce this.

But I later realized that this forum is still good and better after email is not included, the IP evil fee and report to moderator is working and this forum is getting better with that.

Good reporters are tackling the issue of bounty spammers in an appropriate way, if alts are misused, they are tagged. If they are posting shit contents, they are deleted and can lead to warning like a week ban. These are good and I will want it to continue like that.


If they are ignored and nobody to watch what they are doing that would be disastrous. Also we should not be concerned about other social media but just this forum Bitcointalk.

At least their "work" on the forum can be limited by reporting the spam posts. I'm almost sure that they are not happy when they see their posts getting deleted. And we have to keep the forum clean (of course, between the limits on what's possible).
But I agree that too much drama goes on around that kind of accounts. On the other hand, it's not the same about all clickbait topics, no matter how many times the same thing was discussed or how useless it is?
So the reality is (as I see it)
* yes, it's too much drama around those accounts
* people seems to like drama, it gives them a reason to post (also keep in mind that most sig campaigns have a minimum quota, but it's not the only reason)
* it's known that the forum grows even with shitposts, as long as they are under a certain threshold

So yes, you're pretty much correct, but I don't think that anything is going to change.

I've said before that I think tagging Newbies for "bounty abuse" is futile. Accounts with high Activity and 0 Merit have nothing to lose, because they can easily create new accounts. Worse: it makes negative feedback very common instead of reserved for scammers, which leads to more and more people (including bounty/campaign managers) ignoring the warning. So I don't think tagging them makes the forum better.

The bounty scams don't even care about the duplicate accounts: they pay with made-up tokens created out of thin air, designed to make the creator rich. There's no way all of them are unique projects, and I'm pretty sure a couple of teams are behind most of the ICOs, Defi and other useless "disrupting" pump and dump BS that gives crypto such a bad name. They don't care: the more spam, the more they earn!

But if you do insist on tagging bounty spammers for bounty abuse, why not just tag them all? There's no way thouse bounty spammers all have thousands of real followers. All they do is spam Twitter and Facebook, and they exchange followers with other bounty spam accounts. So even if a bounty spammer uses only one account on Bitcointalk, they're still cheating with fake followers on social media!

The way I see this entire "business": there are a few multi-millionaires at the top, and there are a few (maybe hundreds or even thousands) of bounty spammers at the bottom. Together they produce millions of useless posts all over Bitcointalk and social media, hoping to convince more greedy gullible victims to hand over their money. It's a terrible concept and the entire business model is deceitful.

Yes, the topic title was clickbait, but I'm trying to make a point here. If tagging them doesn't work, if the forum doesn't ban their low-quality posts, and if they don't bring anything good at all, can't we just ignore them completely? Don't mention them in Reputation (sorry, I'm guilty too), don't mention them in Scam Accusations, don't look for "alts" as long as they have nothing to lose, don't tag them, but just ignore them completely?

No spam
Self-moderated against spam. Discussion is of course allowed.