Topic: BAN ALL SIG CAMPAIGNS - page 3. (Read 5597 times)

I do not agree. It's a nice way to make some extra money and share your knowledge at the same time.
Ofcourse some people only post trash, but a lot of people (like me) try to make something decent out of their posts.

It's like saying "Hey, that American guy started doing terrorism, so they all start doing terrorism, so we gotta kill all Americans!"
Is that fair?

I think not! I think we should just stick to the Signature Campaigns 

Regards,
Trump

Ban all sig campaigns. I was surprised to come back after all of these years and realize it was a "thing". It is noise and is a long stretch from the original intent of this forum.

i agree to ban the signature campaign if their rules are explicitly encouraging spamming and trash posts. however, some of the people really need to rely on  certain works in order to make their own lives. some of the signature campaign operators have been allying to deal with those spams IIRC.

Crap quality posters are being taken care of in the SMAS thread it's not the fault of the sig campaign that the forum is being flood by crappy post but by the participants who posts them. How can a campaign manager monitor all their participants if there thousands of em or, 1000-2000 members unless they have some bots to monitor those low quality post like Waves campaign. Sig campaign is not the problem here but rather the lack of understanding to the problem. The devs could develop a software that could automatically delete those crappy post from sig campaign member. You're asking to remove the one reason why the users and forum are earning of your so called crappy sig campaigns, only rich people says that.

Ok, maybe bitcointalk have to ban all altcoin signature campaigns, because their participants makes high part of crap posts and managers doesn't care much about quality of posts in general.
Another idea, I don't know, is it good or not, but I try to share it: Forum need for centralized list of best campaign managers and only they will have right to manage campaigns. Something similar to SMAS, but bigger and mandatory.

Many people were posting here before the era of signatures begun and are still posting (some of them with sigs), why shouldn't they?
If you're doing something anyway and someone offers to pay you for that you'd be stupid not to agree. Campaigns won't be banned because people are free to pay for advertising and free to advertise. This forum is all about freedoms and choices, if you don't like sigs you can disable them, report spamming users, or leave the forum and move to reddit.

Admin of site should make the option

Put a price to buyout ALL signatures on the forum. Maybe I would buy it for fun

Because we all love money obviously. What else do you think we are posting here for? Chit chat?  I wonder what will happen when the business for the more industrialized posters dries up. World famine and mass exodus from the forum?

No one's asking to ban all the signature campaigns,the want to limit the quantity of the participants to be only of high quality posters and maybe establish a rule or  threshold to restrict the participation.

And also this

It's funny how everyone here that's suggesting to ban signature campaigns are all enrolled in them.

It is tedious for both the moderators and signature campaign managers to filter out the spam. In a lot of cases, newbies tend to spam incorrect information and posts without putting any effort into it. They tend to be around in threads such as "When was your first Bitcoin transaction", etc. In some cases, they would just go to random threads and copy what the people above is saying.

The latter is the most annoying kind of spam, even worse if the person above is spreading the wrong information and it would just get amplified. The most we can do is to regulate the campaigns and make sure that they review their participants thoroughly and it is frankly, quite hard for campaigns with a lot of participants.

No, I don't get paid for posts in this section.

Banning sig campaign will not only stop spammers, but also wipe out a large amount of high quality posters. Frankly, if there is no incentive, why would high quality posters visit and spend their time here? There is plenty of money lying around the internet for quality content generators. To speak the least, DO NOT underestimate theymos' BI. He had a reason to allow Sig Campaigns as well as discriminating sig space among various activity level.

To outsiders and people new to the forum the 'helpful and quality posts' you are talking about might seem 'genuinely helpful and oozing quality and substance' but the reality is they are just bloated artificial adhering to the 75-100 characters minimum quota-fulfilling run-of-the-mill generic posts. We can see and smell these from a mile away. This is how things work here - you write a bunch of stuff and you get paid.

Now what is the purpose of this forum? I will tell you. To get traffic and sell ads - major purpose. In-between we have the campaign runners, the campaign farmers, the people picking up scraps from giveaways, the people doing trades, the people scamming, the people trolling, the wannabe forum police, the psychopaths etc. It's a diverse ecosystem depending on you guess what - the signature campaigns.

You have a massive point there. Mostly, people treat it as a way to earn some money by abusing it thru spam, making a lot of account for the purpose of acquiring more Bitcoins which really takes away the real essence and purpose of this forum. And there comes members who ruins the discussion by their messed up grammars which is barely comprehensible.

We can't neglect the fact that there are people who still do quality post and some who come up some ways to counter these people whose purpose is to bleed out money but it seems like it is very hard to do so since the number is growing day by day. I also read that thread regarding Bitcoin Office having insanely 200 accounts.

The point is to seek out those people to never treat it that way and as a member to do their duty to have healthy discussions and report those who are doing bad things to the forum and put those people in their rightful places. But we need to put strict rules regarding ICOs which has a considerable amount of crap posters.

So does we need to ban this campaign which is the most simple and effective solution rather than counter and counter and considering the rising number of these cases? I am now considering it as well since my brain hurts thinking of solutions to counter those. I too myself struggled to find sensible posts nowadays. But I believe we can still regulate it though it would be hard.

To OP, it doesn't mean to do it all your time blocking those people but rather you can do it if you encounter one then do it if you encounter one again. It really is a hassle but an effective way to make those people disappear whenever you browse the forum. I don't mean to take his all time to block them all.

But it's not a reward system for contributing anything of value. If it was there would be no problem with campaigns as they would encourage only quality discussion. The only thing that they currently reward are third-world shitposters who make literally dozens or sometimes hundreds of accounts to take advantage of crapcoin campaigns that will happily accept and pay anyone regardless of content. Your entire posting history could be copy and pastes of others posts or one line sentences of absolutely nothing of substance and they'll get paid for it campaign after campaign.


Nobody has time to spend all day ignoring the literally hundreds of shitposters. People would just leave if they had to do that because if you haven't got a signature it would be mostly pointless posting here. The forum is largely unusable for any worthwhile discussion because the vast majority of the content is by semi-illiterates churning out one sentence of barely intelligible crap on one account after the other purely as a way to earn a living. Many of them will have little to no interest or knowledge of bitcoin at all but only care about it for the money they can bleed out of signature campaigns. And the ico campaigns almost exclusively do little to nothing about the quality of posts on their campaign and several of these campaigns pop up every month accepting as many users as they can get which is often in the hundreds. One farmer alone was caught with over two hundred accounts on one campaign and that will just be the tip of the shitberg.

I dare to disagree. These siganture campaigns in the forum should be treated as a reward system for actively participating and contributing something valuable to the forum itself. It is not solely for financial interests but rather an exchange of ideas and thoughts, a way to learn more and effectively especially to those who have experienced it first hand.

To OP, you can choose to ignore, report, or blacklist them. Signature Campaign managers are implementing strict rules and choosy in picking participants because they knew about this. Maybe some are not that strict enough particularly in the ICOs which have hundreds of participants to look at it one by one.

I believe some of the Signature Campaign managers do review posts by accepted members and reject them if the content value is low. Some earlier post spoke of the newbie's learning what not to do by posting thru trial and error. I believe that with time anyone can become a better poster. Banning all Signature Campaigns is not the solution.

I agree and aside from learning from the post of senior members here they also learned that through signature campaigns they can earn something out of it. Signature campaigns are a way of marketing and advertising tokens or coins that we also take advantage of when we buy those coins. It's just that there are some posters here that are joining signature campaigns and doesn't really have "good quality" posts. Managers should be strict on that supposedly because it's their way of advertising their campaigns.

I would think it's an issue with how some of the signature campaigns are managed.  I think that signature campaign managers should be "scouting" good quality posters that they'd like to promote their product, rather than everyone applying to be a part of a signature campaign, regardless of whether or not they support the product.  When the criteria for accepting people into a campaign is lax, then a high quantity of low quality posts are the result.

Of course this would require a lot of time and due diligence for the campaign managers, and not everyone may have that type of time.

Some newbies come here for the signature campaigns and after some time, they are gaining some knoweledge and they start to post some really intresting post. They start to invest, to mine. I think it is a good thing for everyone, this forum was made from the beginng to give some advices to people, who are intrested in cryptocurrencies. Signature campaigns is a new way to atract people to Crypto world, soo why not?