Topic: did you agree moderator need to controlling signature managers (Read 1618 times)

I just curious with these case will occured again... that's why i have think moderator need to controlling sig managers.

So you think that reading tonnes of spam everyday is easier than reading instead a few messages from the same guys who are now posting all this crap? Further, moderators are not just reading all these posts, they are also banning shit posters (at first warning, then banning, then rinse, repeat). After that moderators start receiving angry messages from the banned members. Still gonna claim that moderators will be overwhelmed if signatures are disabled? As to me, they will have much less work to do...

Whether they are really interested in that is another question though

That would indeed work at first, but the moderators would be overwhelmed by requests from accounts to enable signatures. You can see the number of 'why was I banned' threads on meta. They will be replaced by thousands of 'why was the request to enable signatures on my account rejected' threads.

Well obviously, A moderator is moderating a thread regardless of who are you(campaign manager you were talking) Although there were few campaign managers who's a moderator as well(eg. lauda to be specific). Some moderator can still moderate other campaign managers like lutpin and yahoo because as we all know they should still have to follow rules and their actions would be judged by some of the moderators where were they posting the topic. On the part of lauda obviously it is still not guaranteed for abused  as well because other mods can easily report him to the administrators or the moderator can still surely see it.


Now the lesson here is that they still are not the highest rank users on this forum and any abused that was seen by the administrator will surely be not tolerated(it is about trust on the highest member ranks to take proper actions and yes i do). Other thing is that if you have complains about them report them to the administrator and make sure to bring your evidences to make a proper jurisdiction as well or else you would look hilarious(andco -- lol it was actually i joke wakaka).

I don't quite understand what you meant to say

I'm not in favor of completely removing signatures for lower ranks, which is what your reply seems to come down to. I talk about disabling signatures for new members and enabling them later on their personal request when they eventually get promoted to higher ranks. You seem to have taken my reply out of the context of the post I was replying to. It was about making a transition to managed signatures more smooth without wreaking havoc by disabling all signatures for all ranks altogether at the same time

It's hard to understand quite what his point or proposition is here. I'm not sure whether he's for or against moderator involvement. I think it's lack of staff involvement that has lead to the current situation and the laissez faire attitude to sig campaigners doing whatever they want can't continue. People will cry and complain when they get kicked off a campaign or invent conspiracies about conflict of interest etc but I haven't seen a staff member who didn't have the best interests of the forum at heart. Either way we can't really win. We do nothing and the forum gets spammed massively and people complain about that. We crack down on it in an attempt to clean up the forum and people still complain. Can't really have it both ways.


Whilst the first part of this is likely the reason, if signature campaigns were banned more people would advertise here via the ads so therefore more money for staff. There's no doubt that traffic would drop drastically but at least it would be quality discussion then but this forum would still be the biggest and best place to advertise so many sig campaign operators would just advertise that way instead. I think it's about finding a balance. If all campaigns are run strictly and only accept and pay for quality posters then that should solve the problem but only if all campaigns are on board.  The [SMAS] thread is just those managers trying to do their part but of course people who are affected by not being able to get paid by spamming the forum with poor posts on multiple accounts are going to whinge about it. Their easy source of income has been affected and they don't like it. Well good. If every campaign did this the forum would be cleaned up significantly because they would have to improve or their accounts here are worthless.


But this would also have negative consequences. It's true most of the spam comes from newer members and I wouldn't be against some of the lower ranks having their signatures removed completely, but then this just makes farming more lucrative and more people spamming to hit the desired rank and more threads in Meta asking why their activity isn't going up and when will they be a Hero member etc. It's seems to be swings and roundabouts whatever we do.

So all this fighting with spam is no more that running around like a chicken with its head chopped off?

Disabling signatures is a measure which has a lot of room for adjustment. In this way, there is absolutely no need to disable all signatures at once. I don't think there are a lot spammers roaming the forum who are Heroes or Legendary members (due to "natural selection" of sorts), and their signatures could be left enabled. In fact, I don't think that any enabled signatures should be disabled at all. Just disabling signatures for new comers will do wonders in due course


Removing shit posters from equation could in fact contribute to greater rates for posting due to higher competition between signature campaigns for constructive posters allowed to wear signatures

Oh, I'd say that's a conservative estimate.  What with all the alts running around, if signatures were disabled this forum would be as dead as the Dash forum I just joined.  It's like screaming in an echo chamber.  The whole sig campaign thing is a very clever idea and I've said before that I haven't seen this sort of thing on other forums.  It's very cool that people who are probably eating toothpaste sandwiches in a desert somewhere can earn a little bitcoin just by posting--admittedly, the more toothpaste the greater the language barrier, but still.  And the pay rate is the same wherever the user is.  I find that fascinating. 

But yeah, there's that shitposting issue that just doesn't seem to ever get any better...

Theymos doesn't want to disable the signatures because the traffic to the forum will start to dry up when everyone has realized they can't earn Bitcoin any more by posting. Less traffic will lead to less paid advertisements and less profit for the staff. How many will continue to post after there is no more cash? Less than 50% I would guess.

You seem to be hell-bent on ultimately banning everyone


It must be an insane waste of time and effort, but maybe we are just not there yet to feel it in full. Today you ban hundreds of accounts (and waste hundreds of hours) and get thousands of farmed accounts tomorrow. If you missed my suggestion how to resolve this issue effectively and efficiently, I can repeat it here. Instead of doing the same thing all over again and turning it into a Sisyphean toil, all signatures should be disabled by default until enabled on personal basis by a moderator or trusted user on the member's request. Moderators are still reading all these posts, so it won't make their job any harder, but the amount of shit posting will decrease multifold since unbridled farming (for the sake of evading bans) will be pretty much meaningless under these circumstances...

But if you prefer fighting windmills, then more power to you

I never tell for moderator be signature managers, the reason of it if this still goes with the rules by signature manager will destroy bitcointalk.
easy for the owner website looking high forum traffic to put ads at there, they have money so what they are looking is the traffic of the forum.

Just saying here, but for supporters of a cryptocurrency that spits in the eye of any sort of centralized regulation, there sure as hell are a lot of folks who quickly go crying for regulation when things don't go their way.  Kinda makes ya wonder.

Can you explain why? I don't see any reason why a moderator can't be a signature campaign manager at the same time as long as he is effective in both, and don't forget that keeping the forum clean from spammers is one of mod's duties (correct me if I am wrong).

Im sure the user is speaking directly at Lauda

I think you guys missed the point of this guys post? I feel like he is talking about our SMAS team and we need our opinions moderated. If thats the case i think hes wrong obv. We are not just adding ppl to the list for the hell of it. We are actually adding the ppl who need to be added. Will we stop all the spam? No, but we will stop hundreds of accounts from being able to spam. And we will continue our efforts and try to help the forum be a more enjoyable place for ppl to come to

I've asked hilarious before responding now: Not according the guidelines, e.g. they could be running the campaign off-site and whatnot. It seems that directly banning the service in question is just more effective, thus the second step (from my previous post) gets skipped.

Is banning of managers envisaged?
Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign) talks about action against Campaign Operators (and not campaign managers)

This has already been somewhat *implemented* by this change: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign). However, what used to happen in the past (e.g. in the case with Bitmixer) is that the manager/service just ignores you or shrugs you off by making accusations of potential bias. What should be happening is:
1) Banning of signature spammers (users).
2) Banning of managers that ignore the warning that they receive regarding their mishandling of their campaign(s).
3) Banning of service that don't care about the detrimental impact of their shit posters on the forum.

There are only two cases of this I think, Hilariousandco with Yobit and myself with Bitmixer.

There are few mods who are campaign managers and others who own the board management. You can PM them for assistance and help. In terms of cash delay to members, escrow always helps. I don't really think why Mods should get involved in other's business for low profit.

I think to be fair that there should be involvement of a moderator to control sig camp manager. please vote for it