Topic: Suggestion for the Admin (Admin please read) - page 2. (Read 687 times)

Look like OP want to divert attention from their project. Sometimes posting about trust system, merit abuse and now posting about signature campaign. If really you want to make better forum then first you should avoid make multiple duplicate post. Because this topic has been discussed multiple time on multiple thread.

Can I ask why lot of suggestions are coming out from you after got red tag? Where was your suggestion before you get red tag? Its seems you are only around Meta and Reputation after got red tag.

I am suspecting this account is alt of FutureICOs who have got multiple negative feedback's from DT members including me for promote scam ICO.  Because seems OP just got one merit from that user to become Jr. member.  However its just suspicion. Lets come to the point,

Do you know how much efforts need to create a scam accusation thread. How much time spending for investigation? Sometimes its take 2/3 days. I know because I made lot of scam accusation. Those time I have spent for single scam accusation, same time I could make hundred post on Bitcoin Discussion board.  I strongly believe no any signature spammer will spam on scam accusation board and meta. Whoever there they are from beginning, not just for signature spam. Yes its true sometimes few spammer coming both board like you come. So it can't be prevent like we are unable to prevent you from spamming.  

       Quite a few signature campaigns are also avatar campaigns. Some of the avatar campaigns will still pay for posts made in sections/threads that don't display signatures. (Not all though.) Is the OP recommending that we also don't display avatars in meta or scam accusation either?
       Furthermore, there are  a few people who post in the scam accusation sections that use the signature space not for an ad but to direct them to links to a service they are providing or the cause that they are fighting for.
      It does not appear that there is overwhelming support for this idea, at this time. Maybe the administrators will consider when it appears both of these boards are overwhelmed with signature spam, and it becomes a nightmare to moderate.

So do you think it's because Signatures are disabled there? I personally believe because people don't have "TOPICS" that matches the requirement of the section followed by the Moderation strictness. More so, even for a moment it make "SENSE" to have ads allowed there, as the end of the day, it's a lot more beneficial.

But seriously, how do you think it "BENEFITS" anyone with Signatures allowed on 2 sections like Scam Accusation and Meta, which are in ACTUAL more "SERIOUS" issues than the "SERIOUS SECTION" itself!

There is not very much activity in the serious discussion section and threads are often not responded to. This makes me believe not many people visit this section.

My CASE? Do I need to put "BIG LABEL" that this is not about "ME" "MY CASE" or anything. I have given a suggestion, just give your VIEWS on that IF you wish to give.

If you think it's not a good suggestion, just say it "INSTEAD OF DOING PERSONAL ATTACKS".

It's EASY to do what you said, but those type of posts "DONT" Get the attention, the posts get on those 2 mentioned sections.


Yes, but is the problem IF those two sections have Signature "DISABLED" will it really "HURT" anyone? Especially when keeping the logic of those sections in front, those are purely to make the forum "BETTER", not anything else.



Ok so you mean people "ONLY" read those sections where there is "SIGNATURE" allowed? If so then why "SERIOUS DISCUSSION" thread activity did not decreased? While there are a lot of things that goes into category of it will "WORK" or it will "NOT WORK", but with the thing I mentioned, we "ALREADY" got LIVE and LIVING example of that section, I see at no way the activity decreased there.

Ultimately, those sections are based upon making the forum "BETTER", they are not there to force people to look into.

People I believe are "SMART ENOUGH" to visit the section purely based on "QUALITY" of it instead of "FORCED" advertisements on their heads and minds.

I don’t necessarily want more people posting there but I do want people to read those sections on a regular basis. If this is what it takes to achieve this goal then I am okay with more people posting.

What a sensible individual will do is to make use of either the search option on the forum or make use of google. This issue regarding signature blocking have been discussed numerous times to the extent both the forum and some skillful members of the community have provided us with some solutions:

Forum solution: [Guide]: How to disable signatures without using scripts
Other solution:

In your case, it takes a not insignificant amount of time to find all the different sources you plagiarized from, take screenshots of your plagiarized whitepaper and match it to screenshots of the source material, crop and upload all these screenshots to an image hosting site, and format a post with all these screenshots linked. Suggesting that people are making Scam Accusation posts as a way of displaying their signature is utter nonsense - if I was trying to meet a posting requirement for a signature campaign, I could easily make 5 or more reasonable posts in the time it takes to make 1 scam ICO thread.

---

Is anyone else reading these random quotation marks as someone saying something really sarcastic and making air quotes while they do it? Makes it really hard to take anything he says seriously.

Ok now I have a question for you. Do you want to make people post there? There are long list of sections on this forum, where people are "FREE" and should be posting to keep the forum going. So do you want "FORCE" people to post on these 2 sections, which are sensitive?

If you say that, No, it's better that people post and that even if is a "RANDOM" post on those section, just so that there is "MORE" activity on that forum then fine, I have no issue as that's your personal view. But from what I "UNDERSTOOD" was that those forums are "PURELY" to "IMPROVE" the forum, it's not about asking everyone to post, as that makes "NO DIFFERENCE".

I repeat it again for you, it's "NOT" possible for you or ANYONE to see "MY TRUST ZONE" unless you specifically "VISIT" my profile. So how exactly would I be creating it to "SHOW" that? The topic is "ENTIRELY" about signatures.
 

I see no benefit to removing ads from these sections. If anything removing ads would give people with paid signatures to not post there, which in turn will cause less people to visit these sections, which is not a desirable outcome.

Disabling signatures is a kind of moderation/restriction.

IMO, your motivations are transparent but I prefer to attack the suggestion and not the messenger.

Multiple boards? My suggestion is "SIMPLY" about SCAM Accusation and META boards. How exactly does this make "OTHERS" suffer.

This is GIGANTIC FORUM and I "BET" only 5% people would be visiting "THOSE SECTIONS" for posting. So HOW does it make "OTHERS" suffer.

It will only make "THOSE" suffer who got WRONG INTENTIONS and use those boards for their "OWN BENEFITS"

And do you really are trying to say "Advertisers" are interested in "THOSE" sections? As I thought these 2 sections are purely based to help the forum, not to help "PROMOTIONS".

BTW, how does "RED TAG" tag comes into this?

The whole suggestion is about Signatures, nothing else. So whether I have "RED", "GREEN", or "PURPLE" tag, it's irrelevant!

Signature campaigns are an important part of the forum and disallowing signatures in multiple boards will not benefit the signature campaign that is being advertised. Will they come to advertise their service on the forum knowing their advertisement are banned from the multiple sections of the forum? No. Just because you have a red tag doesn't mean others should suffer.

Although, I was not aware of this but anyway this is already mentioned above. So, I feel it shouldn't be exactly a major task to have it applied on Scam Accusation and Meta Section.

Do you think it's not required? Especially when you yourself say it's "Moderated less strictly", so will this not help?

Again what's to lose IF this happens? I mean when the "INTENTION" is to decrease scams, then does it really matters whether Ads are ALLOWED or not?

We already have a section that has signature ads (actually all signatures) disabled. It is the serious discussion section. Anything is allowed there except advertisements and posts requesting a response from the administration.

Sections like meta and scam accusations are important and this is why they are moderated less strictly than the rest of the forum.

I already replied to same suggestion above. I think there is "NOTHING" to lose with the thing I suggested, at least there is no "PERSONAL" benefit in this for me. So it's just for the FORUM.


But see tell me, how do you know I have red trust? You won't know IF you are looking at this "THREAD" only. But IF you go on my profile then only you will be able to know that. And nowhere in the post I have mentioned "TRUST" or "FEEDBACK" system. In fact, the question is FAR away from that. It's purely based upon "SIGNATURES", so again where did the trust system comes in?

You are right that it's transparent, but only for those WHO are "FOLLOWING" me. So just imagine, you just opened this thread today, and got NO CLUE about the stuff around me. So, will it be so "TRANSPARENT" for you? No it won't be because you "TRUST" is "DISABLED" here, so the ONLY WAY you know it when you actually "KNOW the HISTORY" of me.

And just for ONCE tell me what's wrong with my suggestion, is it going "BENEFIT" me? And also what's wrong with applying this suggestion? I believe it can only make forum better? If people on their good great intention then why will they bother IF this change happens?

You're not asking for it directly, just like you're not making this thread because you're disgruntled with the trust system...right? 

Come on, what you're doing is transparent.  And it's also kind of passive-aggressive, which I can't stand on the internet along with not being able to easily interpret someone's tone anyway.  Just be upfront.  You're angry about the negative trust you got.

Yep, and again, if OP had ever visited Meta or Scam Accusations this thread wouldn't even exist because he wouldn't have plagiarized a whitepaper--or would have expected the consequences.  And he'd know this suggestion is old territory.

I don't find advertisements on Bitcointalk too intrusive. But if you're bothered with it you can disable avatars and signatures in your profile settings in "Look and Layout Preferences". Not sure if it's a feature that depends on the user's rank, I noticed it long ago, take a look at it.

So you judge suggestions based upon whether it's from "RED" trusted or "GREEN" trusted individuals? If so that's pretty sad, especially given this "SECTION" itself disable people to see trust, so that every suggestion has "SAME" value as it would be for anyone. But sad to see your bias mindset. But anyway, it's okay.

I was not aware that it was previously brought up, but I guess there is nothing wrong IF it's brought up again, I don't think these are type of suggestions that can be done "OVERNIGHT", so who knows Admin MIGHT be working on something? The world runs on hope, and I hopeful Admin much like has done in other sections will "APPLY" it for some more sections as suggested, rest it's only the Admin who decides.

I prefer making it better this way, and I hope I don't need your permission to do so. As whatever I am doing is "WITHIN" what the rule says. I have only given suggestion, it might be liked/disliked, it's entirely a person's own view but everyone is "FREE" here to give their suggestions. As ultimately ADMIN is one who decides IF it's worthy or not.



Why don't you kindly leave me alone? There is "NOTHING" I have written about "ME" here. I have only "GIVEN" suggestion, and majority of the people you see on the "SCREENSHOT" are ones that are "NOT" Capable of leaving tags (feedback), so why would I bring them into it? BTW, What's your views on all of them using "SAME" Links? Anyway, I simply meant the section should be "FREE" from such activities and for a moment, forget them but will not in FUTURE someone try this technique?

Because everyone is interested in supporting the person who "CREATED" the thread, and appreciation but no one looks much into whether the allegation was correct or false, so is this not the "EASIEST" route to promoting?

Like I have said, this is just MY suggestion much like "MANY" might have given theirs. If people dislike it, I am okay because everyone is FREE in their thinking.

Because those signature-free sections were created specifically to address the spam problem in the Off-topic board. But there is no spam problem in the sections you specified, so nothing needs to be done. You're not seriously suggesting that the users who tagged you did so simply so they could spam their signatures, are you?

This suggestion has been brought up previously, coincidentally by a red-trusted individual. It didn't go anywhere and I doubt this time will be different. If you're interested in making the forum better you should search/read more and post less.