Excellent idea/project.

As it happened, I was starting to think about how one could keep track of this entire process.

I haven't looked at all the details yet, but you could create a list only of users who posted after the ban. Or apply filters to the current list.

How about average position of top board, where the average is based on top board of each user? For example.

Account A
1. Gambling discussion (90%)
2. Bitcoin Discussion (8%)
3. Meta (2%)

Account B
1. Gambling discussion (95%)
2. Speculation (4%)
3. Meta (1%)

Account C
1. Speculation (60%)
2. Gambling discussion (30%)
3. Bitcoin Discussion (10%)

The average of each board would be
Gambling discussion: (1 + 1 + 2) 3 = 1.33
Bitcoin Discussion: (2 + 3) 2 = 2.5
Speculation: (2 + 1) 2 = 1.5
Meta: (3 + 3) 2 = 3

I'm curious whether this approach would show different board compared with "Where they posted".


As reminder, some of the sigbanned account doesn't join Rainbet campaign despite wearing Rainbet avatar/signature. See I'm seeing some sketchy stuff going on.

This is because of 90% campaigns are from casinos.

I guess, this is time for campaign managers to remove the mandatory rule for gambling posts.

Wow... this is exactly what this community does best.

Instead of just complaining about spam, members are building tools and making the bitcointalk better. That's the spirit that has kept Bitcointalk relevant for all these years.

Well done... @TryNinja, @nutildah trust me I feel you're not just helping Bitcointalk, you're serving the Bitcoin community as a whole.

Hopefully this also encourages more meaningful discussions. Bitcoin has a huge list of BIPs that need to be discussed https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

I'd love to read a discussion about BIP-110 than scroll through pages of AI-generated jargon.



I disagree!!

We need less noise, and you're doing a great job of achieving that, @nutildah. 👏👏👏

This is great! An excellent service that complements what the @nutildah has been doing, because it allows everyone to see the posting patterns of users who have had their signatures banned. That helps remove doubts about the decisions being made, whether people agree with them or not.

Better yet, the possibility to see what someone's posting behavior changed after the signature ban also helps @nutildah and community evaluate whether that person deserves a second chance or an reduced penalty. For example, if someone continued posting but adopted better posting habits, that is a good sign and may justify an earlier review.

Congratulations, @TryNinja!

Excellent work!

Sorting where possible, and furthermore we need to see a queue of users that are going to have their bans expired with the earliest being the first. That is how we can focus on observing their behavior as soon as the ban is over, and it would be good to keep them on that list even when they are unbanned as they will probably get banned again shortly after.

You haven't made a sufficient number of your policies public yet or you have not yet defined them. I disagree with the 2 year ban on account farmers as being way too lenient but the other stuff is good. What would you do in this case -- when it is clear based on behaviors that the users have only been shitposting for profit, and they resume as soon as the ban is over? Do nothing at first until they prove to be shitposters yet again shortly after enrolling in a campaign? Would that at least justify a doubling of their previous ban?

Most of them do not read a single thing in any thread and just deliver the most generic reply possible, sometimes to the first post sometimes to the last posts depending on how big the thread is. I have demonstrated to you an example in private, but we can demonstrate countless examples. I mean there is nothing wrong with not wanting to read all the shitposts in a thread since they are mostly shitposts, but then your contribution to the thread must be a high quality one to justify this. If it is a generic one, the user is a provable shitposter.

It only works when theymos gives someone power to actually do something and they do something unlike the useless other admin and global moderators, they could have done this a long time ago. Without power, these tools are mostly useless and a very ineffective use of time.

Everyone talks only about how many members got sig bans, and no one mentions the managers who employed them in their campaigns and if it wasn't for this initiative, they would still be paying them to spam today. Whether anyone likes it or not, their responsibility is the greatest in this story. Managers must raise the criteria when it comes to sig campaigns and then there will be no need to repeat such things every few years.

By the way, have you looked at the members applying for the campaign vacancies? It seems to me that there are a lot of alt accounts that will just continue where they left off.

Not only managers, but mods as well.

If you take any of those gambling board shitposters who got sig banned and report their posts, they will usually get marked as bad or end up unhandled. I gave up reporting shitposts and duplicate threads on the gambling board because in the vast majority of cases, nothing gets done.

There's already been a discussion about this in some other threads, but as soon as you mention pay rates you look like someone who's only here for the money. Realistically, pay rates have remained the same as before the pandemic, and for $100 today you can't buy even 50% of what you could 5-6 years ago.

The solution is very simple - raise the criteria for each sig campaign participant, focus on quality and not quantity. Redirect the money received by spammers to good members, increase the number of paid posts and pay rates, and continue with sig banning. In a few months, the forum would look different in a positive way.

I understand the sentiment, but I would like to ask you to keep reporting, even if it feels pointless. It does help us.

Yeah that is fair enough.