I had removed him. Please message me users, I often don't notice these threads until too late.
Could you let me know his alts so that I may ban/remove them? If you can't then I can't do much about it.
A disturbingly large portion of the posts in those threads are all his accounts.
Many thanks to bit-x for their continued contributions to the forum
.
Many thanks to bit-x for their continued contributions to the forum
.Could you let me know his alts so that I may ban/remove them? If you can't then I can't do much about it.
Hilariousandco covered a lot of it already but:
No, I'm not going to share user information with you. I've offered you suggestions on how to get around that in the past. Require a pm from the user to collect payment, or require at least one post a week (almost all the bans are at least a week if not more). The first you don't do, would be easy since you use a bot. The second, after I suggested it, you then went to weekly payments, rendering it useless.
And yes there is a lot you can do, you just don't want to do it. At the very least just look at the threads and put a little time into it (it isn't rocket science), it is your job after all, is it not? If you can't do it, don't you think you should fix that? Do you really think just paying people to post and letting everyone else deal with the garbage that results is going to end well? Do you know what I think when I see Bit-X? I think spammers, the same ones that spam my email with INCREASE YOUR PENIS SIZE NOW!@@LOOK@@.
Yes i agree with all your points there but i also think that bans happen more often now that there are a lot of signature campaigns than before and not only because theres more people that spam or post insubstantial posts, i remember a year ago when i was using my other account and there were only a few signature campaigns, i never participated in any and i used to post pretty shitty posts without really realizing and sometimes i had my posts deleted, even 10 of them deleted the same week and never got banned and i never saw anyone else getting banned for it, maybe someone if he made waay too many insubstantial posts.
If you have a signature ad now you are more likely to get banned which is kind of stupid, mods should only take in count your posts quality not if you have a signature ad or not, just look at the people that got banned recently and complain here in the meta, 90% of them were banned because of sig ad + insubstantial posts and the others were permabanned for various reasons, i havent seen anyone getting banned for spamming without a signature ad.
If you have a signature ad now you are more likely to get banned which is kind of stupid, mods should only take in count your posts quality not if you have a signature ad or not, just look at the people that got banned recently and complain here in the meta, 90% of them were banned because of sig ad + insubstantial posts and the others were permabanned for various reasons, i havent seen anyone getting banned for spamming without a signature ad.
No, people get banned for insubstantial posts, and other reasons without having sig ads. Difference is, the bans for sig spammers literally cost them money (in some cases, a lot if they have multiple high ranking accounts) by banning them. Getting it reversed would not only allow them to continue posting, but somewhat validate their previous posts as well. Most others get banned? They know why, and they deal with it. Overall, very few of the not related to sig spam bans are ever posted about in meta. The majority of sig spam bans do, though I have seen less of it lately (they don't want their campaigns to know they were banned).
- First, it would put pressure on signature campaign managers to to do a better job of not allowing people who consistently make low value posts to continue to participate in their signature campaign, which will get people to put more effort into their posts
- If signature campaign managers put a good amount of effort into minimizing the above stats, then over time the forum will be a more pleasant place to converse and the overall viewing experience will be more pleasant
- If signature campaign managers do not do an effective job of minimizing the above stats, then their company's reputation will suffer, and the company will have incentives to replace the signature campaign manager
- If a signature campaign is associated with a large amount of paid signature related spam, then participants will want to disassociate themselves with that signature campaign in order to avoid being associated wit signature related spam. If this were to happen then additional pressure would be put on both signature campaign managers and companies advertising in order to exaggerate my first and third points
I've suggested making campaign managers more responsible for their participants and instead of giving users 1/2/4 week bans we do the same for campaign managers for their 1/2/3 offences of not doing their job properly and keeping an eye on their participants. Of course they should be given a polite warning first that they need to step up their game but if they don't a week ban should come next, then 2 weeks and a month. Maybe a perma ban after that but most should get the idea after their first ban. I think this would give campaign managers the motivation to actually do what they're supposed to because it's going to damage their business if they're banned. For the campaign managers that do their job and check users before they're allowed on the campaign and before they get payment I see next to zero spam like on Rollin, but then you get campaigns like yobit who only kick members off after I tell him about them (and it's annoying having to do this daily when it's not my job) and coinomat who do absolutely nothing at all and because of his apathy and unwillingness to moderate or police his users they quickly notice they can get away with it spam and copy and pastes and abuse until they're caught but in the meantime the damage is done. We maybe should even look at leaving negative feedback on some of the worst campaigns who do next to zero. I've certainly thought about doing it and maybe that will kick start them into actually doing something but it would likely be a conflict of intetest for me now as I'm offering to run campaigns on their behalf but something really needs to be done especially to those who don't even bother replying to my messages about abusers and continue to pay them. If you don't have the time or patience to look after your campaign then you really need to hire someone who will.
I don't think acting on campaign managers would work, they'll just stop posting here, or use anon accounts. While using anon accounts now would be a red flag for a sig campaign, it would eventually become normal and accepted, similar to how it's the norm to see a one post newbie selling a hero account.
Something definitely needs to change though, this isn't a problem that can be solved with more moderation. For bans to be effective in countering sig spam, the number of bans would have be much greater than it's ever been. Even during the last "ban wave", some of the borderline users I was watching were saying "Well I might get banned but oh well, gotta get paid". The campaigns may not care that users that have been here for years are being banned, some permanently, but I do. I don't want to see that many people banned, ultimately it's not good for anyone. A sig spam ban that removes their ability to use a signature (and avatar, and personal message) would solve the problem of needing to ban users, but it wouldn't solve the sig spam problem.
I still think an ignore signature button (with filtering to filter all signatures of that type) would be the best option, with an autoignore at a certain threshold. See a lot of spammers with a certain signature? Ignore it, and if enough do then that company has essentially had their signatures removed from the forum.