Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on April 20, 2019, 09:14:42 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on April 20, 2019, 08:29:27 AM

This is not going to do very much. A manager does not need to be "not banned" to do their job as a manager, and they could potentially do their job in its entirety off the forum without even disclosing their account.

Fair point. How about blacklisting then, as explained in the post I linked to above. If YoBit don't clean up their act, then YoBit as an entity will be banned from advertising on the forum. I still think we should be handing out escalating bans to the individual spammers though.

Quote from: Quickseller on April 20, 2019, 08:29:27 AM

I have long advocated for reports regarding damage done via individual company's signature campaigns in the form of number of bans issued, and posts deleted (and associated reasons).

I think this would work great with the blacklisting idea. If your campaign has x number of posts deleted for spam, or x number of users banned for spamming, in y number of days/weeks, you get a warning. Repeat offending companies or entities are blacklisted.

In order for a company to be blacklisted from advertising they would need to enroll in a signature subscription (with confirmation by the advertiser) service by the forum so to prevent someone from enrolling a bunch of accounts to wear a company's signature to create a bunch of shit posts and get the company banned from advertising.

The threshold for blacklisting from advertising on the forum would be very high. It currently takes a lot for a person to get banned, even temporally for having insubstantial posts with a paid signature, and bans are generally only handed out after a sustained negative behavior and after a number of warnings (often in the form of deleted posts) are given out. The time required to have someone blacklisted would likely be a minimum of multiple months so that a company can evaluate performance and take corrective action.

I do agree we should continue to punish spammers in the form of posting bans, and perhaps signature bans (and perhaps incrementally diminished signature abilities).

Quote from: Quickseller on April 20, 2019, 08:29:27 AM

This is not going to do very much. A manager does not need to be "not banned" to do their job as a manager, and they could potentially do their job in its entirety off the forum without even disclosing their account.

Which is exactly what's happening here: something that I've feared. High-count low-effort campaigns that induce spam, hosted off-forum.
[/quote]I think this is one result of the long-term systemic abuse abuse of the trust system via the leaving of negative ratings for reasons other than someone reasonably being a scammer. There are a number of by all accounts, legitimately running businesses that have negative trust on bitcointalk, and do not have much to lose by running a signature campaign that spams this place up. Although in this case the rating may be justified.