Topic: Ban spammers from having a signature - page 2. (Read 1956 times)
this will most likely not happen because other rule-breakers without sig ad will get harsher punishment. also I don't see how this is better than temp-ban in terms of teaching them a lesson.
I have a good idea, instead of banning sig spammers in the new forum, we put a lock on their signatures,
what do you think?
what do you think?
ban is better for spammers, heavier punishment is needed and if they dont want their account to be permanently banned then they should improve their posting quality.
Would be nice if in addition to being able to suspend signatures, staff could fix the trust system here. But that's another story.
I have a good idea, instead of banning sig spammers in the new forum, we put a lock on their signatures,
what do you think?
what do you think?
ban is better for spammers, heavier punishment is needed and if they dont want their account to be permanently banned then they should improve their posting quality.
For most of them, the two things would essentially be the same with the exception that an account with a signature restriction might be able to be resold. I don't think this is a horrible idea at all, as spamming is one of the bct offenses that do get enforced. It would give the person much less incentive to spam, right?
I have a good idea, instead of banning sig spammers in the new forum, we put a lock on their signatures,
what do you think?
what do you think?
ban is better for spammers, heavier punishment is needed and if they dont want their account to be permanently banned then they should improve their posting quality.
Just.. "Your Point Is Invalid".
lol.
I think it wont happen.
lol.
I think it wont happen.
I have a good idea, instead of banning sig spammers in the new forum, we put a lock on their signatures,
what do you think?
what do you think?
Jump to: