Topic: Just remove signatures already. As in delete, disable, gone. - page 6. (Read 44829 times)

That is true, but even one or two bad campaign managers can spoil the situation.
I like the idea of removing signatures for lower ranks. It wouldn't be too hard to implement and can be rolled back if unsuccessful.

They would have to reveal the name of the company that the members will have to advertise, so will be easy to find the people behind the the business.

And ban them probably would be bad for BTC economy, just close the campaign and don't let them create another one

Restrictions in terms of size of signature don't really do much though. Nothing changed when the sig restrictions got put in place other than the amount someone could earn but most of the spam comes from Newbs-Members and they're clearly willing to post shit for dust so they'd do it no matter what. I've suggested removing signatures for lower ranks as a possibility. Maybe remove them for everyone up to Full Members like we do for avatars and I think that would cut down the vast majority of spam but I would rather signature campaign managers just do their job and employ some sort of quality control instead. If campaign managers actually did what they're supposed to and refuse to pay shitposters we wouldnt have this problem.

I really like this idea, why not try it for a month or two ? It won't stop the spam but I am sure it will decrease it.

It might be time to bump up the signature restrictions
i.e. New Legendary Signature Restriction = Current Hero Signature Restriction
New Hero Signature Restriction = Current Senior Signature Restriction

I notice a lot of spam from full member accounts.
People might think twice about destroying senior accounts by spamming.
Moreover, it has been quite some time that Legendary position has been introduced, but nothing has changed on the signature restriction front.

great points. time to time is clearly visible, that some members here are hunting posts "hours before deadline" and this brings negative experience to all members online at this time.

anyway is tricky to set fixed value without minimal post counts..

i feel that would be quite unfair, to pin the manager's shortcomings on the one running the actual site/service. however, i can also see how that would be incredibly effective, making it the responsibility of service/casino owners to pick effective campaign managers and monitor the post quality of participants from time to time.

i dont think its that easy for them...
imagine primedice gets banned: i would ban their primary primedice account as well: this would serious affect their business as well.

i know this would be a paradigm shift (treat businesses as a person): but law outside of the forum usually works that way

i meant they could get approval from 'x' service provider to run the campaign, and with the intent to be lazy as fuck, create an alt account or buy a cheap one to manage the campaign, and if they decide to do so, they can use a vpn, whatever to hide the link between the alt and main account. that way, if the campaign was deemed to be poorly managed, the alt account would suffer the ban instead of the manager's main one.

they cant use alt-account: that would be ban-evading.
but you are right, that they dont need a forum account et al to create and manage a campaign. but IMHO they wont get that much users without forum visibility which might help a bit

its spelled "nuisance" btw, and that aside, banning the campaign managers, i feel, might be ineffective to some extent; they could use alt accounts to manage campaigns, and they dont even have to be able to post to 'manage' the campaign if they get banned; all they have to do is be able to count posts and punch in numbers to send payouts. i think simply being more stringent on what qualifies as a constructive post might do better; hand out more bans and raise the bar a little bit.

of course, there is also the option of going as far as to ban the campaign entirely by banning any user that wears 'x' campaign's signature, but it would never come to that given the current "rules."

You are right on some things. For example when you write: "If you are lucky, you will find someone completely out of their depth asking a stupid question answered a hundred times, someone that then cannot understand the answer." There are to many threads when you can meet such things.

But you are wrong in having fear from these people. Their never, according to me, enter in threads when the discussion is about questions regarding "cryptographers and programmers and entrepreneurs" which want to "exchange information about Bitcoin".

So it was enough for you to eliminate the "easy" threads which are the preferred ones for that kind of people and you are safe.

Fortunately the forum has to many boards, child boards, and threads. Everyone of those has its content well defined and its name write clearly on it. You choose those which interest to you and if your interest are particular I can assure you that you not find any post with signature campaign there.

The signature campaigns are not the fault and the cause of your problem. Their target are never such boards or child boards for which you talk in your post. Or even if there are people with signature campaign who write in such places I am sure that those understand well those and want to tell their thoughts in those. Which, I think, cannot be crap. If someone dares to write in those, that meaning that he cannot be an crap author. It is another thing if someone spam there. But their posts can be reported and he will banned from the forum.

I think that who have something with the signature campaigns are you. And what is the reason of this ire that it is known only by you.  

Temp banning them is exactly what I've suggested. More temp bans need to be handed out to the users on their campaigns too until they get the message. And being a lazy campaign manager might not be against the rules but but spamming poor quality posts which they encourage is and do nothing to stop. A rule can always be added that if people can't run a campaign effectively then there will be punishments. Regardless, these campaigns are still being a nuicance and nuicance users are usually banned. If a user signed up to this forum and created a thread that said they were going to pay users to post crap all over do you think they wouldn't receive negative feedback or be banned? No difference here really. The signature campaigns like yobit and secondstrade are causing a significant mess and it's unfair on everyone. Signature campaigns could actually improve the post quality of the forum if campaign managers only accepted and paid users who made decent posts and there are some campaigns that do that but it's futile ultimately when the users that don't get accepted or paid for their posts just go to a campaign like yobit and secondstrade that will pay them for any crap they post.

ok, i change my question: why arent the forum rules changed to tempban sigcampaigns which dont check forum posts

because managing a campaign poorly isnt against the forum's rules; theyre not breaking a rule so there are no grounds for a ban. a rule for this should be implemented, but its difficult to draw a line as to when the campaign can be considered to be causing rampant spam.

why dont ban (tempban) lazy campaign managers until they fix and enforce their rules

Fixed rate campaigns do cause less spam for sure but it's more about who runs the campaign and whether they're doing their job or not. Pay per post campaigns like yobit and secondstrade do cheapen the place because their companies do nothing apart from pay spammers automatically without checking posts and it gets worse everyday because they then tell their friends they can get free bitcoins for posting crap and the knock on effect continues on. It would be hard to enforce people to only pay fixed rate though and even fixed rate can be abused if there's no one actually managing their campaign. What we actually need to do is put more pressure on the lazy campaign managers to do what they're supposed to and if they can't get on top of it there will be consequences ie bans.

FWIW, I run with signatures disabled. It adds too much visual noise to threads.

I would not shed a tear seeing signatures being completely removed, and abolishing pay-per-post / sig campaigns.

I feel it cheapens the place.

An user of the italian section (Anon39) suggested to prohibit campaign that pay for post, and allowing only campaigns that pay a fixed value every month.
I'm not sure if this is the solution, but it can be a good improvement.
It must be also forbidden to compel the user to write a minimum of posts.

Most campaign managers do not care at all, this is correct. We can not generalize in this case either and there are exceptions. I know one. The problem is actually quite complex and at the moment there is no efficient solution to it.

---

---

We're looking into options. Banning campaigns should be the last option since it would harm the good people.