Bitcoin Forum

I was just going through a thread in meta relating to disabling the signatures, so just thought of making a poll to have a sinple look at what the people want?

It exists already *another thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=786662.0  and the poll is really ridicolous, because there are a lot of alt-accounts ... so the vote doesn't reflect the truth (1 person = 1 vote).



*maybe 3-4 topics.

Why don't state your reason for making this poll and sharing your side about this.

well, because majority of board (I would say around 80% of active posters, maybe even more) are already involved in some signature campaign and it is solid income for everybody, don't expect any other vote than last 2 options..this is just how it works here..

This is free speech right? You can't ban ponzi sites. Allow them all or ban all.
My view: "Allow all kind of signature like it is in present."

@OP You will not win. Even you have 300 alts. :)

Are you talking spammer?, Please don't be upset , if you saw some posts are violate the rules , just click "report to moderator".

Also if it will the "Ban all type of signature's option" I do not think theymos will remove the possibility to put a signature, so this poll is really really useless.

This is just a typical tactic of the "ad-siggers" to "protect themselves" by using all of their alts to "justify via a poll" that we should all "respect their spam" which is 99% of the content of this forum now.

Seriously - when you allow as many alt accounts as you want what exactly is the point of even having "polls" on the forum?

The CIYAM decentralised forum will not have polls for a start (they actually about the most ridiculous "feature" that I've ever seen on such a forum).

I think this forum is alive, not only, but also thanks to the signature, which allow you to approach the bitcoin even without spending some money to get started.
Obviously there is a positive side and negative.

Well, the forum is indeed more active due to the signature campaigns, but the amount of spam it generates is quite massive. That's a pro for theymos, but a con for a lot serious forum readers/posters.

Smaller scale signature campaigns would result in less spam, perhaps even less forum activity, but the quality level will definitely get a boost. That's a tiny con for theymos (if indeed the activity goes down), but a pro for serious forum readers/posters.

I don't know when did signature campaigns start in this forum but it appears to be active since a year. When it has been running since a year, the admins must have thought many times to ban these campaigns due to the spam and hence I would leave it to them to decide what's best for the forum and this bitcoin community. I'm no one to judge here but these topics are repeated too many times and it gets boring to talk about the campaigns over and over again just like the DT list conversations have become boring to talk about.

It's easier to fight against spam: Report to moderator button.
If you really believe that a post is against forum rules, you can always report it. Why do you want to ban signature for all people because of some spammers?

Voted: Allow all kind of signature like it is in present.

Like I said in the other 10 threads with the same question: campaigns just need to crackdown (Bit-X is now doing that per Marco!). I think we can pressure the others into doing the same thing and weed out these spammers.

Exactly. If campaigns crack down on spammers then it makes browsing the forum a much more enjoyable experience for all. I try to be tough on spammers with the Rollin campaign, but it's not uncommon to see some bad spamming coming from some of the other campaigns. However, sig campaign spamming has been discussed time and time again, with no real changes being made with some campaigns so I think it will be awhile (if ever) before we see some of these campaigns cutting down on spammers.

A handful of bad apples ruining it for everyone else. This seems to happen everywhere. If people are spamming and on a sig campaign they should be banned not signatures. Is the issue signature campaigns, or is the issue the people that make 100 posts per week spamming?  I'm on a sig campaign because it brings in some extra coins each week, but I only post when I have something to say and I usually only make around 20 posts per week.

Many spammers come from pay per post scheme, maybe it's time to switch into fixed campaign ...


hi,guitarplinker is this consider spamming (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1119778.0) ?

I probably wouldn't count those posts as constructive since that topic is always being discussed (and so easy to find as well). However, hilariousandco is managing the campaign for next couple weeks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=950982.msg11818575#msg11818575) so the final decision would be up to him on that.

Having a poll on this type of thing is futile as it will be completely bias. The people who wear sigs will obviously vote no and they will likely outnumber the ones who wish they were gone. Yes, spam caused by paid signatures is a problem but there are various ways to get on top of it without banning them outright and we would have to remove signatures completely which would be unfair to those who wish to promote their own business or threads and also disable personal text and avatars again as they are currently monetized and just removing everything should be the very last resort when everything else has been tried and exhausted. As I have previously mentioned there are numerous ways to deal with spam from campaigns. If every campaign manager checked users posts before they were allowed on to the campaign or refused them payment for poor quality posts made whilst on the campaign then there would be no incentive to spam. If people can't even get on to a campaign due to their post history then this would force them to improve and if they made poor posts whilst on the campaign and are denied payment because of it then it would be futile making shitposts because you're not going to get paid thus all they will be doing is wasting their time. I've also made other suggestions to combat spam in the past but I think banning campaign managers rather than their participants if they can't do what they're supposed to and keep their campaign in check would go a long way. Something tells me if marcotheminer or other campaign managers were to receive a two week ban they'd soon do what they were supposed to or hire someone who will.

People also seem to only focus on the negative aspects of signatures and not the positives (especially when I think they can coexist without having spam as long as changes are made). Like it or not paid signatures are by far the easiest way to get your hands on Bitcoin and also promote your Bitcoin business which both help the bitcoin economy and spread adoption, but at the same time I know and accept they do cause damage to the forum and they shouldn't be allowed to pay people to just shit all over it without repercussions, but I think this can be limited by restrictions or campaign managers clamping down on shitposters. If campaign managers actually did their job and kept an eye on posters and acted accordingly then there would likely be little issues but it's the fact that they don't that has caused so much damage but that apathetic and passive culture from them needs to change.

One thing I would also like to point out is that banning signatures is very unlikely going to make this forum suddenly resemble a beautiful utopia of intelligent discussion. I'm sure the forum would be a lot less busier or hectic but I doubt there will be a grand improvement of the quality of posts. That ship has likely sailed now as Bitcoin has hit the mainstream and the higher the price of Bitcoin goes more waves of newbs will come in and most of them sadly will care more about the potential to get rich quick than what the actual tech could do for finance or the world. If it does come to signatures/avatars being removed eventually I'm sure the people complaining at spam will still be complaining about it, only there wont be anything to blame it on then.


Already PMd him a warning.

Just allow them for now, keeps the content ticking over nicely.  They are improving in quality all the time.

Those threads arnt for voting. And yes you have a valid point.I am not on any side, I just wanted to see what the people want.

Let me be honest, I wont be here if there is no one paying me to post. I picked the last option. Bitcointalk is a open forums. Thus, we should allow any kind of signature campaign. Although I wont be joining campaign which is scams or such, but I'm sure it will greatly improve the Bitcoin daily transaction and we will have some 'drama' on the forums - which is good.

Despite the annoyance of signature spammers, signature campaigns have, at least in my opinion, an overall positive effect on the community. With Signature campaigns, anyone can acquire a solid amount of Bitcoins. Furthermore, the campaigns promote active use of the forums (as opposed to lurking) and reward users for spending more time on the forums.

garbage, the forum is not here for the sole purpose of people earning " a solid amount of bitcoins" by posting, it is this mentality in newbie and jr members that bring about spam.

I think the slight problem is with, A, pay per post campaigns with no limit! B, with lazy campaign managers not wanting to check posts properly.

I would allow signature campaigns but with a low requirement fixed rates. Giving people the chance to earn more by posting more is asking for spam.

Pay extra for quality.

They might have a positive effect on the people who earn from them, but at the moment they don't have a positive effect on the quality of the forum; quite the opposite in fact. They could have a positive effect if campaign managers only accepted and paid excellent posters but that's not currently the case. Most of them pay anyone who makes the minimum amount of crap and it's that that needs to change. I think signatures are a great way to earn money and a great way to promote your business and they do help the bitcoin economy and bring traffic to this site, but we cant let people crap up the entire forum in the process and that's something that needs to be dealt with and the campaign managers could help with this immensely if they just actually did their job.

There are no positive aspects of signatures. It is all stupid clutter, targeting the most mentally unfit among us in an attempt to separate their bitcoin from them.

Its a pretty pathetic way to make an income. There's more honor in picking up litter on the side of the highway.

Agreed - it is pretty hard to imagine Mike Rowe creating a bitcointalk.org account with an ad-sig as a "dirty job". :D

I dont want to be too off topic but its kind of funny that someone like you, with negative trust for doing what you did complains about signature spam, i prefer spam than scam.

Is it just me, or was there actually a time when when the societal value of one's work was tied to their income? ... or has this notion just been a charade my entire existence ... in that life is a giant capitalist free-for-all, where whatever it takes to make it is justified by having "made it;" aka having stepped on the heads of your fellow man, woman and child in order to be "successful."

That's what most modern-day "success" is derived from: the sociopathy of not giving a shit about who you hurt or how much of a crappier place you make the world for future generations.

Money rules all (shitheads). The triumph of this new philosophy has never been more apparent than being privy to inner-workings of this forum.

Individual sponsors running signature campaigns are free to accept or refuse posters based on the quality of their posts. They can also place limits on maximum # of posts per campaign or per account if they wish.

Let the free market decide

Well that would be great if most did this but they don't and that's half of the problem. If every campaign denied and accepted users on the quality of their posts then the forum would be a lot cleaner and the discussion would improve.

Signature campaigns plays a big role in this forum. Plus it helps people to earn bitcoin. It might be annoying for some people to just spam away but they get penalized by their signature campaign managers if you report them.

Maybe you can offer a reason for it to be banned and then we will look at your reason and dissect it instead.

I think it shouldn't be. Signatures play an important role on this forum despite of it's negative effects to others. A lot of users depend on signature campaign for an extra income.

True. And as I said, they can report the spammy or unrelated posts to the campaign managers to penalize them. Its not that hard to send a private message and report anyway.

The problem with reporting spammy posters to campaign managers is that quite a few managers could care less. I've reported a couple people in the past with fairly obvious spam to their campaign managers and nothing has been done to stop their spamming. Instead they're getting paid for all this spam, which shouldn't be happening.

Most decent signature campaign managers don't allow crappy posters to represent their campaigns & kick those low quality posters off after a week or two if it continues.

ndnhc & Carra23 are very proactive at managing the quality of posters in their managed campaigns. I personally don't see the problem with sig campaigns providing the posters displaying them are posting good quality stuff.

Remove or limit the campaigns to one from each category of business per month. The only thing they do is create spam and useless posts. Accounts should be allowed to wear a sig but not because they are getting paid. It's a huge problem on dis forum and has only got worse since April.

No way, signature campaigns should not be banned. It is mutually beneficial for signature provider and signature user. By the way this poll doesn't make sense. You didn't state your opinion about this poll. I am astonished to see that there are some people who are against signature campaign.

I hope all of them are newbies ;D