Topic: What is the purpose of signatures? - page 2. (Read 2258 times)

I consider Lauda to be a fairly reasonable person. If a person improves their post quality and consistently post that way I see no reason why they wouldn't remove the negative trust attached to the account (as it would no longer be valid).

Who do you think would do the work? The only person Global or above showing any interest in cracking down on spam on the forum is hilariousandco, and a task as widespread as cracking down on spam cannot be done by just one person who already has other responsibilities.
People are getting tired of the mindless spam all over the forum, as I would think you are. Negative trusting these users to prevent them from joining most campaigns is a good method of attempting to lessen the problem until the mods/admins show that they care at all.
It is getting past the point of it being acceptable. People are joining here specifically to join a signature campaign and spam shit for some coins. That isn't right.

Those fall invalid as I'm solely talking about signature campaign participants that enroll a plethora of accounts in the same or multiple signature campaigns. I'm well aware of those reasonable use-cases.

I'm not familiar with it, but sure.

What kind of redemption are you talking about?

I'm just going to leave a link to this thread of farmed accounts and put a   in here.

Sure, several, but feel free to debunk the for me most important ones:

1# privacy, allows users to voice unpopular opinion without fear for the main account.
2# security, users have a separate account for less secure systems.

Id even add #3 money to this list, AFAIK no campaign forbids users to have different accounts joined on a different campaign.


In this case I would say Im qualified due to my work for BadBear. Lets assume it is as you say an the majority of multi accounters are shit posters. Why punish everyone without a way out or a chance of redemption? Why are you unable to let this get handled by mods? Why do you claim a duty that is not yet yours, as your rank among staff is not yet high enough?

Disagree. There are no justifiable use-cases for the majority. The occasional constructive user may have multiple accounts, but those are a very tiny minority. The rest are shit posters / account farmers.

I base that on the time spent moderating + managing hundreds of users in Bitmixer. I'm most certain that managers and moderators (those that are tackling spam in one way or another) are the most qualified people to talk about this situation, unless there are other individuals that are somehow involved (similar amount of time/effort).

Good luck finding people that are willing to spend significant effort in a similar fashion.

Thats your personal problem though.


What do you base this on? Considering that you yourself post sometimes 400 posts a month, you could easily split this among 5 accounts and enroll in 5 (different) signature campaigns. The number of accounts do not make a spammer, the post quality does.

I'm not fine with one having that many accounts regardless of what they're used for. It is highly unlikely that one has 5 accounts enrolled in signature campaigns and is creating very constructive / useful posts. Anything under this kind of quality for this number of accounts I consider shitposting.

That campaign was last  managed (as still is?) by hilariousandco. Talk to him, not me.

Simple: They are spamming / shitposting.


Yes, but I clearly stated that said users would not be spamming or shitposting. So than I take it that it would be okay for such users.


In that case, start here:
Service: Chronobank.io - Campaign - Manager: ahmed.chronobank # Has not logged in since December.
Service: Qtum - Campaign - Manager: BlackMambaPH # Is/was a borderline spammer himself.
Service: secondstrade - Campaign - Manager: None (?).
[/quote]

Why not start with yobit spammers? There campaign is closed so we would definitely see a decrease in posts with no new members joining and only ones getting kicked out

The signatures themselves aren't the problem. The incentivisation that they provide to posting low quality shit all over the forum is.

That's a flaw in the forum's policy.

Simple: They are spamming / shitposting.

In that case, start here:
Service: Chronobank.io - Campaign - Manager: ahmed.chronobank # Has not logged in since December.
Service: Qtum - Campaign - Manager: BlackMambaPH # Is/was a borderline spammer himself.
Service: secondstrade - Campaign - Manager: None (?).

I share somewhat similar feeling. But you can easily opt for hiding signatures from your settings:

But managers are here to promote their site, will it really matter if they have red trust or not? Just look at bitcoin AG...

However, I do not see anything in the forum rules that alt accounts are wrong, or joining more than one signature campaign.

But most signature campaigns have clauses that limit one account per person in such campaign.

What is the issue with one person with 5 accounts in 5 different signature campaigns as long as they are not spamming?

You know my stance on this, Im for it and will add my ratings. I just dont have the time to do it myself. IIRC other DT have also said they would support this.

Indeed. Going after managers or services themselves is bound to be more effective than playing whack-a-mole with people who own 5-10 (if not more) accounts. This still comes back to the question whether it is appropriate usage for DT and whether we should do it or not. An organized effort between several DT members could swiftly deal with this problem.

I think the idea to go after managers is better as its their job to do something about the spammers they ban as much as its the moderators.

But if 1 person the DT list went out of their way to leave negative feedback on lets say, 100 members in active signature campaigns than this would make them be kicked out of such said campaign because 99% of them do not allow "red" members to participate. But if the "red" is not clearly justified and this is all done in one day, I think issues would arise for such DT member

There's not much that one can do when the manager or campaign in question either:
1) Acknowledges the problem, but effectively does nothing.
2) Completely dismissed your PM and/or ignores it.

The question remains whether the usage of negative trust from the default trust network is appropriate for something like this  this.

Or..

Influential members such as yourself and others that feel the same way can easily speak up against them and force their hand to rectify the situation..

Take your greivences directly to the campaign managers and above their head if necessary in whatever company they are working for..

If you feel so strongly about it you could start tagging managers and company accounts that refuse to cooperate in reducing the spam they are employing..

I bet they'd shape up real quick if they started getting tagged themselves..
"allows spam in the sig campaign he manages"
"this company won't stop spamming our board"

Trusted/influential member: "Hey guy..If you don't stop the spam emanating from the campaign you manage I'm going to leave you red trust and go tell your boss to fire you.."

Trusted/influential member: "Hey guy.. If you don't fire and replace that lazy campaign manager of yours that is allowing spam to emanate from the campaign he is running, which is a responsibility of your company, then I distrust you and your entire company for allowing and promoting this trash"

(Trusted/influential member:) or even group of average members..
Email/pm/post bomb em like congressmen when you want your voice to be heard about what you think should or should not be done..

There you go, problem solved with no government, either they fix the problem or you rightly so wreck the reputation of their company..

I bet all it would take is 1..

Because capitalism..

It's a big chunk of the communities economy, it has BTC flowing as an actual currency (imagine that), it's a great way for people to get their first little bits of BTC and start learning if they are otherwise incapable of purchasing..

If you don't like signature spammers I'd suggest you take it out on the company employing them, rather than wanting the government to solve all your problems for you with always more and more laws, do something about it yourself..

Go post in the companies threads about how you are sick of their spam with concrete references, get others to join you, blast their flagship threads with your disgust for their employees actions, call for a boycott against them by you and your likeminded, start a thread about it..

That's called the free market sorting it out..
If your ideals are shared by a strong segment of the people, and you are willing to speak up against the offenders of your ideals, then you will win..
If they are more powerful than you, more share their ideals, they will win..
In all actuality, it will eventually reach a balanced harmony between the varying degrees of ideals..

If you start pointing out their follies they will be forced to do something about it or accept that they look bad and are resented by all those who share your opinion, and lose your business..

Call em out on it..

Here's a positive: the sigs actually help me read posts in a thread better, if only as a sort of border in between posts.

This isn't to say I'd get lost in a thread without the sigs or that I'd face a difficult time navigating - it just to me seems to better space out and differentiate the text between posts. Even the avatar does the same for me.

I tend to see little relation between post quality and signature in general. People post shit with or without, paid or unpaid, flashy or subtle signature. Yes getting paid per post (or flat) is an extra incentive for some to ask for a ban, but its not the only one. I see the spam as a moderation issue and think more (active) moderators and admins handing out well deserved bans are a solution.