I would really what to hear theymoses opinion on this mater.
He would probably try splitting the sea.
I'd be interested on theymos' take on the matter aswell, but generally, he doesn't comment on concepts like this.
There was some suggestion by OgNasty some time back about how to proceed with signatures, which got a rather long discussion afterwards.
At no point, theymos commented on the topic (IIRC, sorry should that be wrong).
Don't get me wrong, I'm suspicious by nature but this looks like a political powerplay to take over the forums.
You're right, this is the beer hall putsch all over again.
Dont get me wrong, but this has nothing to do with power, it's about making the forum a better place.
And where in general I do agree with fundamentals of this endeavour, there like I said, suspiciousness runs through my veins.
Trust me when I tell you, I want the best for this forum. I have no doubts about all other supporters of SMAS wanting the same.
IMO 50% of votes may be to little, juries in criminal cases are generally, as a rule, required to reach a unanimous verdict, and juries in civil cases typically have to reach a majority on some level. Those rules would suit better in this case.
We're not casting absolute votes like juries. They can be revoked as quickly as they get added.
If we're going for an unanimous concept, that would either slow us down by a great deal or require 24/7 efforts of
all participating active team members.
I do have similar concerns about members trying to elevate themselves above other members by becoming the forum police.
If you've got what it takes, make a counter proposal, join SMAS and help us fight spam together.
If not, please don't blame us for trying to take action.
Why would a campaign want to have the smas seal of approval? Would it bring any advantages?
Most importantly, for their reputation. A few companies have a rather bad image around the forum due to their signature campaigns.
If your campaign supports SMAS, that's (supposed to be) a quality sign for the campaign.
Besides that, they get the work of some of the more reputable (currently active) managers around for free.
They avoid enrolling users which have proven themselves to be toxic to the forum and would be kicked sooner or later anyway and they avoid to pay for posts which don't bring them any revenue in the first place.
Campaign managers have full power to deal with their campaign recruits anyway so is this just to split the load between more people?
It's to work together across the different campaigns. As a unit, we can operate more effectively than a single manager can.
If we're abled to enforce rules and bans throughout all signature campaigns, we can hurt spammers, instead of just bumping them around them between one campaign and the next.
And my next question is why not just make a list of smas #3 members straight off so if people see they are on that list they can take action to improve. You've already publicly declared that I'm on list 3 so it's certainly nothing to do with privacy.
Maybe not with your privacy (duh, we're talking about a rating based on public posts), but rather with the one who makes the initial tag.
notaek shared their list in this thread, and hence publicly tagged you as smas3, others might prefer to do this in an team-intern way.
Eventually, it's open to the one doing the tagging how they want to proceed with it.