The LTB Network Forum

LTBCoin for SPAM

Back to LTBcoin Talk

Comments

bcohen

Offline
Posts: 260

I'm not sure if this would bring out "pitchfork mentality"..

But there should be ability to collectively mark messages as spam and earn LTBCoin for doing so.

A message should only be valued as Spam if 3 or more LTBers mark the message as Spam. The number of LTBers who have marked a particular message as spam should be hidden until it reaches 5.

The more that mark a post as spam the more valuable that spam post is to the Notifiers (those marking the message as spam).

Once a Spam message reaches 5 it gets placed in a "Bad Bear" (term I took from BitcoinTalk) board. LTBers could then have the have the opportunity to unmark the message as spam (double the number required to mark as spam ---to unmark as spam)

Those marking messages as Spam share in the LTBCoin SPAM Pool. However its tiered based upon the order of thos marking a message as spam (i.e. the first to mark earns a greater % of LTBCoin)

Adjust numbers accordingly. I am willing to brainstorm further on this idea --- its certainly not well thought out--- in particular how to unmark a message as spam and when it should be locked/unlocked

LTBCoin for SPAM!

Revison/ Additions: Maximum number of messages any single user can mark as spam must be defined: 3?

---

Updating to include Some Thread Comments

via Adam:

1 - A solid set of easy to understand rules defining inappropriate behavior within our community

2 - Allowing people to bet if a given post/comment/whatever does or does not comply with the rules. There is no advantage to betting it does follow the rules unless you think other people are incorrectly identifying it as a rule-breaker when it is not.

3 - Have non-controversial ones be settled automatically

4 - Have controversial ones flag a moderator who then does a rules-judgement, losing side donates their tokens to the winning side.

Via @Spengler I would be interested to know what sort of thing would be considered a spam post. Would it simply be "a post which is deemed inappropriate"? Would it include, for example, one which:

Adds insufficient value to the discussion? Is unnecessarily negative with no constructive purpose? Is abusive? Is too short? Is generally unpopular? Also, should we be on the lookout for users who simply make short posts all over the forum with not much real purpose (e.g. just saying things like "I agree")? Each post individually may not be spam, but people could easily gain LTBcoin with this behavior if nobody looks for it. I have made a short post myself which just said, "I concur", but I wasn't trying to spam. Perhaps a user's average length of post could be used as a metric, but this seems draconian.

Posted on July 5, 2014 at 8:27 AM
Last Edited: July 15, 2014 at 7:25 PM

4 likes

• troy112

  

  Offline
  Posts: 75

  The maximum no. should be increased, also the spammed post should be sent to a moderator for final review. Because people might just spam for LTBcoins or hatred. Also, we need a system to rate people who do incorrect spams. And after some time that person should be blocked.

  Posted on July 5, 2014 at 8:50 AM
  Permalink
  1 like
• troy112

  

  Offline
  Posts: 75

  Also, need a rating system for good trades, to know a person is genuine or not. This is an important feature required for any forum.

  Posted on July 5, 2014 at 8:52 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• bcohen

  

  Offline
  Posts: 260

  @troy112 The maximum no. should be increased, also the spammed post should be sent to a moderator for final review. Because people might just spam for LTBcoins or hatred. Also, we need a system to rate people who do incorrect spams. And after some time that person should be blocked.

  No Moderators in my opinion as this seems to be aiming for an autonomous model.

  Blocking only in extreme cases (defined as ?) as this may prevent someone from receiving LTBCoin.

  Posted on July 5, 2014 at 8:53 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• Rob

  

  Offline
  Posts: 604
  Location: California

  I think it's worth considering mods, who could be rewarded with LTBcoin. I'm not saying it's the right way to go, just saying it's a model worth considering, along side considering systems w/o mods.

  I have the sense now that most people here are genuine, non-trolling types, which is very nice, and I hope that doesn't change too dramatically. Will scammers and spammers start moving in? Will people figure out technical ways to game the forums on a large scale, requiring effort to separate real people from bots trying to collect as much LTBcoin as possible? Should there be down votes, or maybe various ways each and every post has a place to rate/classify it by users, to crowdsource moderation? Though I also can't help but think someone who has set up a few dozen user accounts could be pretty powerful in a forum that has no mods. Also, is there a policy on free speech for these forums?

  These are all things I haven't considered much, but once my head gets spinning on the subject, I do get nervous about what could happen to this little forum eden.

  Posted on July 6, 2014 at 7:26 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• adam

  

  Offline
  Posts: 1980
  Location: California, USA

  I'm glad you guys think this is a good idea, we want to do exactly this but expand it even beyond spam control - rather, we want the audience to be able to participate and be rewarded for good curation work.

  So now is a good time to be talking about this :)

  Posted on July 6, 2014 at 7:48 AM
  Permalink
  3 likes
• Cryptonaut

  

  Offline
  Posts: 1944
  Location: Canada

  Yep, systems similar to this are on the planning board!

  Posted on July 6, 2014 at 9:35 AM
  Permalink
  2 likes
• spacebat

  

  Offline
  Posts: 7
  Location: Adelaide, South Australia

  The risk is this may increase spam production. If it only takes a handful of accounts agreeing that something is spam to make LTBc, then collusion to create spamming sock puppet accounts to block is incentivised.

  It could be a difficult balance to strike. The reward needs to be small enough to limit bad behaviour yet large enough to encourage the good. Likewise the number of votes needs to be small enough to be functional in practice, yet large enough that collusion is impractical.

  I remember back in the Freenet days, you'd have to periodically republish content to that anonymous, distributed, encrypted network to make it stay available. Suppose forum posts had a lifetime - you pay small amounts in LTBc or via a javascript proof of work hashcash style to give a post a number of views. When a post is viewed that many times, its score reaches zero and it is hidden. More coin/effort can then be expended by the author or anyone else to make a post visible again. But then, a good post should survive based on its rank alone.

  Perhaps a system like this could apply to posts with a low enough rank. Spammers need near zero costs to operate and will move on without them.

  Posted on July 14, 2014 at 4:41 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• adam

  

  Offline
  Posts: 1980
  Location: California, USA

  @spacebat The risk is this may increase spam production. If it only takes a handful of accounts agreeing that something is spam to make LTBc, then collusion to create spamming sock puppet accounts to block is incentivised.

  It could be a difficult balance to strike. The reward needs to be small enough to limit bad behaviour yet large enough to encourage the good. Likewise the number of votes needs to be small enough to be functional in practice, yet large enough that collusion is impractical.

  I remember back in the Freenet days, you'd have to periodically republish content to that anonymous, distributed, encrypted network to make it stay available. Suppose forum posts had a lifetime - you pay small amounts in LTBc or via a javascript proof of work hashcash style to give a post a number of views. When a post is viewed that many times, its score reaches zero and it is hidden. More coin/effort can then be expended by the author or anyone else to make a post visible again. But then, a good post should survive based on its rank alone.

  Perhaps a system like this could apply to posts with a low enough rank. Spammers need near zero costs to operate and will move on without them.

  The ideal system IMO is not automated. It is threefold

  1 - A solid set of easy to understand rules defining inappropriate behavior within our community

  2 - Allowing people to bet if a given post/comment/whatever does or does not comply with the rules. There is no advantage to betting it does follow the rules unless you think other people are incorrectly identifying it as a rule-breaker when it is not.

  3 - Have non-controversial ones be settled automatically

  4 - Have controversial ones flag a moderator who then does a rules-judgement, losing side donates their tokens to the winning side.

  Posted on July 14, 2014 at 7:18 AM
  Permalink
  4 likes
• Spengler

  

  Offline
  Posts: 103

  I would be interested to know what sort of thing would be considered a spam post. Would it simply be "a post which is deemed inappropriate"? Would it include, for example, one which:

  • Adds insufficient value to the discussion?
  • Is unnecessarily negative with no constructive purpose?
  • Is abusive?
  • Is too short?
  • Is generally unpopular?

  Also, should we be on the lookout for users who simply make short posts all over the forum with not much real purpose (e.g. just saying things like "I agree")? Each post individually may not be spam, but people could easily gain LTBcoin with this behavior if nobody looks for it. I have made a short post myself which just said, "I concur", but I wasn't trying to spam. Perhaps a user's average length of post could be used as a metric, but this seems draconian.

  Posted on July 15, 2014 at 1:42 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• belltown

  

  Offline
  Posts: 107
  Location: seattle

  I haven't seen spam as a big problem here. Maybe because nobody replies to spam so these messages go down the list quick?

  But I would love to get LTBCoins for up/down votes. You vote - you get coins

  Posted on July 15, 2014 at 4:59 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes

Post Reply