Topic: Just remove signatures already. As in delete, disable, gone. - page 23. (Read 44870 times)

Perhaps, but some people use it for valid reasons.

I am not trying to impose some "great standard" (I would just like to raise the bar from the "shit" that I've been seeing everywhere lately) but you are more than welcome to look through my entire post history and work out the % of "complete crap" posts that I've made.

I fully endorse signature campaigns, for the reasons already given:


And I like to add:

3) Greed is an integral part of how Bitcoin works, so let's do not suppress it.


While I agree that "spam" has increased in the last months, I still like to point out that "quality" is a very subjective criterion. What some people consider crap others will find interesting or entertaining.
I think one of the most significant aspects of  Bitcoin is that it frees money and empowers people. Personally I have been drawn in this community by the spirit of freedom and the diversity of opinions that are voiced straightforwardly. In the spirit of Bitcoin, this forum should reflect that.
Therefore I'm much more tolerant when it comes to "quality". Some users post lengthy on serious topics, others post very short and jokingly. Both kinds of posts make up the whole community feeling that I enjoy. Nonetheless to reduce the amount of "spam" tentatively attributable to some types of signature advertising I have the following suggestions:

a) disallow advertising that pays solely per post

b) disallow advertising that demands more than a reasonable number of posts for a given time period to pay out  (I think 30-60 posts per month is not excessive)

c) all users starting from junior member level should have the same formatting / content rights for signatures (which could be the level of a full member today), thereby discouraging  posts to grow member level to attain advertising opportunities while at the same time opening up advertising opportunities for newer members

d) reintroduce the newbie prison, to avoid spammers spilling over directly into the main forum

e) opening of a "serious discussion" subsection, which everyone can read but only invited members can post to satisfy the needs of the "quality only"-fraction

I'm confident that implementing these measures can have a significant positive effect on quality while at the same time preserving the community spirit.


CIYAM, I seriously doubt that all of your posts live up to the standard you try to forcefully impose on others.

So people who don't want to see spam should have to "solve their own problem by slowly trying to ignore all of its creators by removing them one by one (with new ones appearing every day)"?

Doesn't seem like a great solution to me sorry (so problem *not solved*).

You CAN find some unconstructive BUT relatively there are much more spam posts for users with a paid incentive to post.

So many butthurt people over signature campaigns and advertising. Pretty sure I can go through posts of members without an advertisement/campaign and find posts that aren't constructive to the forum. If you don't like users with campaigns, ignore the user. Voila! You don't have to see their spam posts or their advertisements. Problem solved.

My sig should be considered as legit or not ? I dont get paid per post. I get paid per referral !!!

They should pay based on just activity only. Activity will also has be modified so that it drops if the poster is inactive for long. This will prevent somebody just signing up and earning while inactive.

I really like ordinary sigs, and learn a lot from them. But it's impossible to stop just the paid sigs.

Could we give each account say 5 spam points? If you spam and are correctly reported, you get deducted a point by senior staff and sent a warning. If you get to 0, you're fired.

edit: I guess this is much like what is happening at the moment - I'm sure if BadBear saw 5 useless posts on an account, he'd just fire the guy. But I think a more formalised approach would end up being fairer to all: an incentive to report, a disencentive to post garbage, a guideline for the staff.

Let's make it more explicit for Zimmah:

The argument is that signature-ads and shit posts are positively correlated.  A positive correlation isn't falsified by a single counterexample.

Deliberately pretending to misunderstand an argument so that you can refute something different is called a "strawman fallacy."

Assumption 1:
People without sigs post no shit

Falsified: Case in point, falllling and his 1000 alts. Among others

Assumption 2:
People with signature do not post constructive posts

Falsified: Several mods and legendary members have ads

Your argument is therefore invalid

What did you say about shit posts again? Stop posting shit please.

Also, by the way, i make well over 50 posts/month (which is the requirement of most ad campaigns at the moment) even without padding with useless posts.

So that argument is also invalid. I'm not posting to get my post count up, i'm posting because i am voicing my opinion. You might disagree with me, but still, a forum is for voicing opinions. Having an ad does not influence my posting frequency or content at all.

Sounds funny said by the guy with one of the longest ignore lists on the forum...

Regarding spam:
One of the newbies I have reported back in the day (he hasn't been banned)

Just noticed your sig - no wonder you are posting this crap.

I have reported you and your sponsor owes me 0.001 BTC now.

they are not paid to post crap, they are paid for the advertising space underneath their constructive posts.

some people are just really complaining about everything...

be glad bitcoin related business is able to create some jobs for people who need the extra income. That's a sign of good bitcoin activity.

Motivated ignorance, I think.

And seriously you don't get that the point is the SHIT POSTS not the sigs themselves?

(sheesh)

So - we should all have to do *work* for being forced to read crap by people being paid to post it?

I think in that case that the advertisers should be forced to pay 0.001 BTC per *report* in that case (that will stop them doing these campaigns pretty quickly).

Theymos - I suggest advertisers have to send 1 BTC to be held in escrow and that for every shit post with an ad in the sig 0.001 BTC is rewarded for each hero+ forum member reporting it (if the 1 BTC is depleted then the advertiser's links should be banned).

report them for spamming.

It's not illegal to advertise, but spamming is still not allowed. Sig campaigns usually only pay out for constructive post (or at least trying to be constructive).

If someone is obviously padding his post count, just report them, make sure to also report them to the owner of the ad campaign.

Besides, I have seen many people with a signature that make constructive post, as well as people without a signature that are just trolling.

The persons that make unnecessary posts just for payment are not that many, for the obvious reason that they do not want to risk getting banned or getting kicked from the sig campaign.

And you can just ignore/report those people.

And if you want to ignore everyone with a paid signature, regardless of the quality of their posts, that's your problem, but i'm not going to let you be the judge of my actions. Extra income is still extra income. Maybe you are one of those lucky few who heard about bitcoin in 2010 and are sitting on a pile of them and don't need the extra 0.1 bitcoin per month, but that doesn't mean we all do.





Seriously though, you can just disable signatures in settings.

Hiding signatures does not solve the problem of people posting crap in order to make money in pay-per-post signature campaigns.  

Sure, it screws with the company paying for the campaign since I don't see their ads but it will not reduce the amount of crap posts.

I would be happy with the simple step of banning all pay-per-post signature campaigns, entities that promote them, and people who participate in them and see if that helps.  The actual implementation would be per BadBear's post: