I suppose it is kind of a subjective thing and also highly dependent on the context of the situation and the rules of the signature campaign. A campaign manager can always do the easiest thing and simply not to count those posts which could be considered lacking of any value and only sent for the sake of flaming and the creation of chaos in a thread/discussion.
Eventually, anyone who just continues to insult without reason and purposely try to taunt others will get excluded from participating in the signature campaign and could even get red tagged by members who belong to the Default Trust.
Many of us have recently seen the case of certain so-called Doctor from the United States which only comes around here in the forum to insult and claim universities are racist and promote violence against him, etc. He got red tagged and he could not join a signature campaign even if he wanted to, it is a clear demonstration of what happena if one misbehaves beyond common sense and reason. Just my opinion.
It is always just try to be civil and be respectful towards others, even when one have strong disagreements, it is one of the things one is supposed to learn how to do as an adult.
Topic: Poll: Acceptability of Signature Wearer's Use of Insults and Foul Language - page 2. (Read 548 times)
March 24, 2024, 09:02:04 PM
March 24, 2024, 05:11:58 PM
Subjective - meaning not all insults are acceptable and may need to be reported to a moderator, but of course there are exceptions why mods should not take action on the report. In some cases - insults may be removed by moderators because they lack meaning or more detailed explanation, but otherwise mods are unlikely to remove them if the post has much other value.
Managers most likely won't count insulting posts like just "you're stupid", "you're an idiot" or something like that due to the lack of character that is a posting requirement. But if it's "you're stupid - you've been warned not to do that and bla bla bla, maybe they will count it as a payment eligible post.
Managers most likely won't count insulting posts like just "you're stupid", "you're an idiot" or something like that due to the lack of character that is a posting requirement. But if it's "you're stupid - you've been warned not to do that and bla bla bla, maybe they will count it as a payment eligible post.
March 24, 2024, 04:27:53 PM
I voted for Yes because all the figures on the wall show the same. Campaign managers may care less about the altercation between members of the forum and since it is a valid post, such would be scored OK just like others.
This is evident in the fact that they do not call anyone to order about this which is one of the reasons those wearing campaign signatures are emboldened to continue with their vulgar words unrestrained. Again, the forum does not spell a strict rule about this, I do not think that it is a headache for campaign managers to do that.
Needless to say, some of the abusive words are constructed with some sensible facts in most cases but just in an annoying manner. So this may make the campaign manager overlook the abusive words and go ahead to accept the post if the requirement of the campaign is met by it, which is the main goal here.
This is evident in the fact that they do not call anyone to order about this which is one of the reasons those wearing campaign signatures are emboldened to continue with their vulgar words unrestrained. Again, the forum does not spell a strict rule about this, I do not think that it is a headache for campaign managers to do that.
Needless to say, some of the abusive words are constructed with some sensible facts in most cases but just in an annoying manner. So this may make the campaign manager overlook the abusive words and go ahead to accept the post if the requirement of the campaign is met by it, which is the main goal here.
A very interesting angle of view!
March 24, 2024, 03:40:56 PM
As far as signature campaigners and insults/profanity goes..[..]
yes, the phrase there is all I needed to stress the idea of criticism.. alot of posters would prefer to criticize rigorously every post they come across...it could include swearing and any type of foul languages you'd think of..A campaign is paying users to make posts, they're not acting like dictators and telling us what to post.
Exactly!! If anyone feels they should shove out their dirty panties for FUCK SAKE, let them be!.. it's got alot to do with their reputation.Sandra 🧑🦰
March 24, 2024, 01:53:18 PM
I voted for Yes because all the figures on the wall show the same. Campaign managers may care less about the altercation between members of the forum and since it is a valid post, such would be scored OK just like others.
This is evident in the fact that they do not call anyone to order about this which is one of the reasons those wearing campaign signatures are emboldened to continue with their vulgar words unrestrained. Again, the forum does not spell a strict rule about this, I do not think that it is a headache for campaign managers to do that.
Needless to say, some of the abusive words are constructed with some sensible facts in most cases but just in an annoying manner. So this may make the campaign manager overlook the abusive words and go ahead to accept the post if the requirement of the campaign is met by it, which is the main goal here.
This is evident in the fact that they do not call anyone to order about this which is one of the reasons those wearing campaign signatures are emboldened to continue with their vulgar words unrestrained. Again, the forum does not spell a strict rule about this, I do not think that it is a headache for campaign managers to do that.
Needless to say, some of the abusive words are constructed with some sensible facts in most cases but just in an annoying manner. So this may make the campaign manager overlook the abusive words and go ahead to accept the post if the requirement of the campaign is met by it, which is the main goal here.
March 24, 2024, 12:32:20 PM
The only correct answer is that it is subject to the rules of the campaign and Bitcointalk, and if the posts give a negative impression of the advertised service then the campaign manager reserves the right to terminate his membership in the campaign.
You are correct some bounty managers will hire people who they think can help the advertised platform create a good impression on their potential clients, it's the managers' privilege to pick the right people in their campaign but they base it on the substance of the post, contribution to the community and where the participant is mostly active based on the preference of the advertisers.
March 24, 2024, 12:22:38 PM
The advertisers don't care about the content; only the income. This is a mostly free speech forum.
They would only be concerned if their business was connected to the scam, not if the poster is just scamming.
They would only be concerned if their business was connected to the scam, not if the poster is just scamming.
Maybe for the Stake or ShitElonCoin campaign, yes, but I don't think that applies to all campaigns. If not all managers are indifferent to the quality of their posters/if the poster is a scammer, it's probably because their customers aren't either indifferent I guess.
I've recently begun tracking all signature, avatar and tagline changes. Until I started this project (similar to BPIP but different) there was no way to "prove" someone wore a signature when they wrote something. I'm not doing this for legal reasons, since I voted it's acceptable, but more to track signature cheaters and other fraud.
If it can helps you, LoyceV already offers a service that tracks signature changes and makes it possible to find out who is wearing what on a certain date.
LoyceV's Avatar and Signature log (campaign managers read this!)
March 24, 2024, 11:15:07 AM
The advertisers don't care about the content; only the income. This is a mostly free speech forum.
They would only be concerned if their business was connected to the scam, not if the poster is just scamming.
I've recently begun tracking all signature, avatar and tagline changes. Until I started this project (similar to BPIP but different) there was no way to "prove" someone wore a signature when they wrote something. I'm not doing this for legal reasons, since I voted it's acceptable, but more to track signature cheaters and other fraud.
They would only be concerned if their business was connected to the scam, not if the poster is just scamming.
I've recently begun tracking all signature, avatar and tagline changes. Until I started this project (similar to BPIP but different) there was no way to "prove" someone wore a signature when they wrote something. I'm not doing this for legal reasons, since I voted it's acceptable, but more to track signature cheaters and other fraud.
This is very commendable, and most here should appreciate it. But you still risk becoming the most hated member here.
>>>All the cheaters will hate you
March 24, 2024, 10:46:25 AM
The only correct answer is that it is subject to the rules of the campaign and Bitcointalk, and if the posts give a negative impression of the advertised service then the campaign manager reserves the right to terminate his membership in the campaign.
March 24, 2024, 10:24:27 AM
I voted insignificant.
I think that insults and foul language should be avoided and we should all stay civil and professional as in real life. But not censored. Freedom of speech is what this forum stands for and that should not change.
A signature wearer is usually favored for how much they post, their seniority, rank, and much more. Whether or not he uses foul language is not something that any advertiser would care about unless it were to become a direct issue, connected to their business.
I think that insults and foul language should be avoided and we should all stay civil and professional as in real life. But not censored. Freedom of speech is what this forum stands for and that should not change.
A signature wearer is usually favored for how much they post, their seniority, rank, and much more. Whether or not he uses foul language is not something that any advertiser would care about unless it were to become a direct issue, connected to their business.
March 24, 2024, 09:50:03 AM
I’m not a fan of using insult on a post even on a rough conversation with other user that doesn’t get my point. But as many years of using the forum for discussion I learned how to use the ignore button to hide the post from other user that I don’t like the post construction. It’s a common knowledge here and everyone already mention that foul language and insults are not moderated.
Signature campaign is just an advertisement which means it can’t control the user posting habits unless it’s already harmful to the brand but it’s up to the manager to their job. I really suggest that you start using the ignore button instead of encouraging everyone here to change their posting habits.
Signature campaign is just an advertisement which means it can’t control the user posting habits unless it’s already harmful to the brand but it’s up to the manager to their job. I really suggest that you start using the ignore button instead of encouraging everyone here to change their posting habits.
March 24, 2024, 09:42:30 AM
Fair enough, but the question was about foul language and insults in Signature Campaign posts and whether it was acceptable.
There is no rule prohibiting campaign participants using foul languages on their posts, if you think it is unnecessary and should not be allowed you can ask campaign managers to add a rule on their campaign that prohibits campaign participants from using foul language. For me I don't see anythin wrong with forum members(may they be a campaign participants or not) using foul language on their posts.
March 24, 2024, 09:18:36 AM
I like the freedom of speech that's observed here honestly. I think we are all adults and can handle hearing the word fuck or whatever foul language is offending you. Instead of getting upset, just scroll past the post if it bothers you. I'm not going to lose sleep if I read a post and someone calls me a bitch or whatever, neither should any of you.
A campaign is paying users to make posts, they're not acting like dictators and telling us what to post.
A campaign is paying users to make posts, they're not acting like dictators and telling us what to post.
March 24, 2024, 06:40:04 AM
Sorry, but I don't understand why it should be easier for a mod to find insults than for a signature manager?
If I meet a thread full of insults and foul words, I can easily use the report button and if a few more people do so, a mod will be notified to take necessary actions. In the other hand, a campaign manager might not be aware of such a thread. I doubt that campaign managers read posts of their campaign participants verbatim. Unless a particular participant is of the habit of insulting always, then the manager should have to keep eyes on him.Thank you for your explanation as it makes a lot of sense if it is used this way. although not sure if it is handled this way.
Foul word is not strictly prohibited for signature wearer since there’s no written rule in the forum for this while most of the signature campaign rules doesn’t include it either. If you really want to push this to signature wearers then campaign managers are the one you need to convince since they are the one who set rules among signature campaign participants if you will target signature wearers on this topic.
Sorry, IMO there is a simple and clear hierarchy in the signature campaign pyramid.
The company/client paying for the campaign
The Signature Campaign Manager
The signature carrier/presenter
Who has the most to lose (in terms of money and reputation)?
The answer should be simple, as the pyramid will tell you
I went with "It is subjective", I see many went with "Yes, it is acceptable".
When it become acceptable and granted for everyone then I think all the forum members will be sold to their signature companies. Business with shady intention companies will launch a campaign and their campaign members will justify anything [right or wrong] in their favour.
When it become acceptable and granted for everyone then I think all the forum members will be sold to their signature companies. Business with shady intention companies will launch a campaign and their campaign members will justify anything [right or wrong] in their favour.
Hehe very well said!
March 24, 2024, 06:35:16 AM
I went with "It is subjective", I see many went with "Yes, it is acceptable".
When it become acceptable and granted for everyone then I think all the forum members will be sold to their signature companies. Business with shady intention companies will launch a campaign and their campaign members will justify anything [right or wrong] in their favour.
When it become acceptable and granted for everyone then I think all the forum members will be sold to their signature companies. Business with shady intention companies will launch a campaign and their campaign members will justify anything [right or wrong] in their favour.
March 24, 2024, 05:27:40 AM
Foul word is not strictly prohibited for signature wearer since there’s no written rule in the forum for this while most of the signature campaign rules doesn’t include it either. If you really want to push this to signature wearers then campaign managers are the one you need to convince since they are the one who set rules among signature campaign participants if you will target signature wearers on this topic.
If you want to be respected then avoid creating a topic that will cause a commotion that usually resulted to foul words. If there’s only a thing which signature wearer avoid is posting a content that is directly opposing the signature that he wears.
If you want to be respected then avoid creating a topic that will cause a commotion that usually resulted to foul words. If there’s only a thing which signature wearer avoid is posting a content that is directly opposing the signature that he wears.
March 24, 2024, 04:39:25 AM
Sorry, but I don't understand why it should be easier for a mod to find insults than for a signature manager?
If I meet a thread full of insults and foul words, I can easily use the report button and if a few more people do so, a mod will be notified to take necessary actions. In the other hand, a campaign manager might not be aware of such a thread. I doubt that campaign managers read posts of their campaign participants verbatim. Unless a particular participant is of the habit of insulting always, then the manager should have to keep eyes on him. March 24, 2024, 04:28:57 AM
I have no problem with it. People are not machines. We have emotions and sometimes cursing is the best way to show those emotions. When you get angry at something, you curse, you get savage. Obviously it is no good if you are constantly in that mood but that's a decision for the campaign manager. I remember there used to be forum user "TMAN" and he was cursing every time he opened his mouth and somehow he was entertaining. He overdid it so much, people gained immunity to his foul mouth in the end. Still though, I don't want to see everybody becoming a TMAN. That would create a mess.
I remember "TMAN" very well and he was also a gentleman.
According to your opinion, maybe it would be good to start a thread for Siganture wearers just for cursing and cussing to let them get rid of those emotions you mentioned they need to get rid of. So they don't have to do it in serious threads while wearing their signature. This might be really fun and help them.
- Yes, it is acceptable
- No, it is strictly unacceptable
- It is subjective
- Insignificant
thanks I will try to add those
Sorry, but I don't understand why it should be easier for a mod to find insults than for a signature manager?
March 24, 2024, 04:22:43 AM
Op, there are only two options in your poll and I think it will be fair to add more options(s). I would have voted the second option, but the word strictly has made it no longer appropriate to be my answer. In the forum, most of the things are not just followed strictly. Whether or not in the forum, foul words and insults are not acceptable and atleast they shouldn't be paid for. But how then will a campaign manager read in-between lines of every posts to know the ones containing foul words.
That's the answer, you can lock this topic.
Is there a special reason why people request that a thread be locked immediately after providing their own answers? This doesn't look like a shitty thread or so...thank you for the posting. if you tell me what options I should add maybe I still can add those.
BTW I don't think that foul language and insults are difficult to see or needed to be looked for in between the lines.
cheers
- Yes, it is acceptable
- No, it is strictly unacceptable
- It is subjective
- Insignificant
March 24, 2024, 04:13:53 AM
Op, there are only two options in your poll and I think it will be fair to add more options(s). I would have voted the second option, but the word strictly has made it no longer appropriate to be my answer. In the forum, most of the things are not just followed strictly. Whether or not in the forum, foul words and insults are not acceptable and atleast they shouldn't be paid for. But how then will a campaign manager read in-between lines of every posts to know the ones containing foul words.
That's the answer, you can lock this topic.
Is there a special reason why people request that a thread be locked immediately after providing their own answers? This doesn't look like a shitty thread or so...thank you for the posting. if you tell me what options I should add maybe I still can add those.
BTW I don't think that foul language and insults are difficult to see or needed to be looked for in between the lines.
cheers
Jump to: