Personally I feel I am getting freedom to post when I don't wear a signature! But I have to wear signature to earn $$
For example:
When someone helps me or writes a very long post for my understanding, I feel like I must atleast say "thank you"! I can do this with no hesitation when I don't wear a signature but the case is different when I wear a signature! I cannot even say a short and sweet "thank you" for their time and effort.
I am afraid that it will be considered as a signature spam and doesn't leave a good impression to people! Hey Macro, you are the bit-x sig manager, is it ok if I post a short and sweet "thank you" when I feel its needed?If you want to thank someone sincerely, making a private message directed to them might do it. Also, if you are hesitant that a simple "thank you" on a thread might be a reason for you to get banned, why not do the first sentence? In that case, you expressed your gratitude sincerely without getting the impression that you'll likely to get banned because of a simple thank you that you've done in a thread.
You are probably not a geek, but I understood what was said. There were obtuse references to geeky stuff that many on the forum would get.
What is your definition of a geek here:
1. a digital-technology expert or enthusiast (a term of pride as self-reference, but often used disparagingly by others).
2. a person who has excessive enthusiasm for and some expertise about a specialized subject or activity:
a foreign-film geek.
3. a peculiar person, especially one who is perceived to be overly intellectual, unfashionable, or socially awkward.
In any case, I don't relate to the above meanings so you're right. The topic was about a news article but it went a bit off topic. I would like a MODs opinion though to know if I should/not report such posts.
@erikalui,
I remember that BadBear said "each users is a case different than other. So also if you report an users it should pass a few days or week before that he is banned. It is obvious than who is wearing a sig ad 'has' the precedence respect who is not wearing a sig ad, but I think also the users who is not paying for post should be 'examined' and after banned (if they continue to make insubstantial posts).
Is the problem the posts or the fact that someone is wearing a sig ad? Or maybe both thing.
@bold: Even I want to know this. On other forums, a user is open to posting whatever he wants and engage in a conversation but since here the case is wearing a signature/not wearing a signature,
it's unfair if only sig members are banned and the others are not. Rules should be same for both but as of now, there seems to be a difference between the two members.Actually, users who aren't enrolled in any signature campaign receive a ban for certain reasons. It's just that members who are enrolled in a signature campaign often intent to boost their post count in order to receive a good pay, thus disrupting several topics by posting nonsense, insubstantial, or spammy posts. However, as for the users who aren't enrolled in such a campaign, they can be banned for doing the same thing like the signature campaign members, though they are likely receive a warning rather than receiving a straight ban if they continue on doing such things. Posting too much that are off-topic and unrelated to a topic can be enough grounds for any members here in bitcointalk to get banned. It's just that the intention of signature campaign members to get a high pay by posting nonsense, unrelated, off-topic posts isn't that acceptable.