|
Title: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: FullNode on November 25, 2020, 04:52:36 PM I am considering the possibility of applying to a signature campaign, I have not done it yet because almost all signature campaigns require changing the avatar for its image
The avatar is a personal image of each user, I believe that the decision to use the avatar field in a campaign should be optional, not mandatory One of the drawbacks I see is when you are reading posts in long threads or in different sections, you have to pay close attention to the answer you are reading and look at the username to know who it is, if this user uses their own avatar you recognize it right away, your brain already has it memorized If several users reply in the same thread with the same campaign on their avatar, then it becomes annoying to be constantly checking who the responding user is Is there any possibility of solving it by the forum administration? I only suggest that the user decide freely if they want to use their avatar or the signature image Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: jackg on November 25, 2020, 05:13:54 PM Tbh even if it's given as a rule I think it's still mostly optional.
You could pm the relevant manager if you're not sure but I'd just go ahead and apply and see what happens but I don't really think they'll care either way... Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: The Cryptovator on November 25, 2020, 05:28:21 PM The forum gives you the freedom to wear your avatar as you want. The forum can't fix which avatar will you wear? The problem is most companies have been asking for an avatar since they are aware of it. So even managers don't like to add it they have to do it as per company requirements. Some companies haven't been asking for an avatar like Chipmixer. So, if you do not like to wear company avatars then you have to seek for those campaign doesn't require for it. I don't think the admin can give you a solution. If the admin limit changes the avatar, then there will be problems if someone wants to update their avatars a second time.
Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: Smartvirus on November 25, 2020, 05:56:16 PM Those are the things your paid for and it's basically company policy for them. It helps the signature to be click bait to some extent. You, know, signature might not be that catchy to the viewers and so, some animated character might just change the whole story. Besides, it's basically an identity, you don't work for a company without some sort of identity card to identify you as a staff of theirs, either temporal or permanent.
Better enough, some companies allow you to design an avatar that connotes them but of your idea which sounds like a breath of fresh air should you not be okay with the regular once. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: LoyceV on November 25, 2020, 05:59:13 PM I believe that the decision to use the avatar field in a campaign should be optional, not mandatory Joining a signature campaign is indeed optional ;)This has nothing to do with Meta, you should probably move (bottom-left) it to Service Discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=85.0). Quote If several users reply in the same thread with the same campaign on their avatar I'm still confused with my own posts sometimes :PTitle: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: Rikafip on November 25, 2020, 06:10:41 PM Is there any possibility of solving it by the forum administration? I don't think that forum administration can/want do anything about it since wearing an avatar as a requirement for signature campaign is not breaking any forum rules, so they won't meddle in that. And they most likely won't make any changes in that regard.I do agree with the other things you said, that all participants of some signature campaign having exactly the same avatar doesn't bring much extra exposure, and what's even worse in case 5-6 members of the same signature reply in same topic one after another it gives an appearance of one user writing all those messages so it has counter effect. At least that's how it looks to me. I've been active on various forums for many years and avatar was always an important part of forum member identity. Then again I do understand companies wanting to get as much exposure as possible for their money so maybe it would be a good idea to find some middle ground. Something like BestChange, signature campaign I am currently part of did, so we can have customized avatars while their logo is still visible. From what I noticed, reactions to that innovation were positive so maybe after some time other signature campaigns consider doing similar thing. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: hilariousetc on November 25, 2020, 06:31:41 PM This isn't something the forum is going to require or enforce. Campaigns are just trying to get exposure for whatever they're promoting so most will require the avatar to get more bang for their buck but if it's part of their terms the only thing you can do is either not join that campaign or ask if you can be an exception. Most probably won't grant you the exception though as they're paying you to promote their product and if that includes the avatar then it's probably unfair to everyone else and if one person gets special treatment everyone else likely will want it too. There are campaigns that don't require them though like chipmixer but they're probably the exception.
I believe that the decision to use the avatar field in a campaign should be optional, not mandatory Joining a signature campaign is indeed optional ;)This has nothing to do with Meta, you should probably move (bottom-left) it to Service Discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=85.0). :P It belongs in meta in my opinion as it looks like he's asking the forum admins to prohibit it or make a rule against it. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: DooMAD on November 25, 2020, 06:37:37 PM So we recently had a topic about requesting intervention to make avatar ads clickable (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5286250.0) and now people want intervention to make them optional. Certainly a lot of interest in avatars lately. I'm not a member of any other forums where the admins need to play "avatar police", so it all sounds a bit strange to me when people come up with these ideas here.
What benefit would it bring to the forum? If the answer is "None. It would only benefit me" then it's probably safe to assume it's not going to be a priority for the staff here. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: decodx on November 25, 2020, 06:42:53 PM What benefit would it bring to the forum? If the answer is "None. It would only benefit me" then it's probably safe to assume it's not going to be a priority for the staff here. We, all together, make a bitcointalk forum. The voice of the community should have an impact. Staff and admins cannot exist without us just as we cannot exist without them. Maybe it would be a good idea to organize some kind of petition? If enough people agree with this idea, maybe the forum administrators will react and introduce some kind of rule or restriction for bounty campaign organizers. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: hilariousetc on November 25, 2020, 06:49:38 PM What benefit would it bring to the forum? If the answer is "None. It would only benefit me" then it's probably safe to assume it's not going to be a priority for the staff here. We, all together, make a bitcointalk forum. The voice of the community should have an impact. Staff and admins cannot exist without us just as we cannot exist without them. Maybe it would be a good idea to organize some kind of petition? If enough people agree with this idea, maybe the forum administrators will react and introduce some kind of rule or restriction for bounty campaign organizers. Anyone is free to create a petition or poll, but even if the majority of users wanted it it wouldn't necessarily mean the admins will react to it or enforce it, though I'm sure they'd take it into consideration. This seems like something the staff aren't going to get involved with though and probably should be a free market decision really. If someone is dead set against wearing the avatar then they just shouldn't join that campaign. Some people are dead set against signature campaigns and therefor don't join them but you can't really have it both ways. What benefit would it bring to the forum? If the answer is "None. It would only benefit me" then it's probably safe to assume it's not going to be a priority for the staff here. Well, much like removing signatures it would make the forum look a bit cleaner and users would be more easily identifiable but there's nothing to stop one or more users having the same avatar anyway. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: LoyceV on November 25, 2020, 07:24:28 PM It belongs in meta in my opinion as it looks like he's asking the forum admins to prohibit it or make a rule against it. In that case: What is it with people asking to take away freedoms all the time? This forum gives freedom, enjoy it! There are millions of websites out there that don't give you freedom, don't try to turn Bitcointalk into that direction. Please!Maybe it would be a good idea to organize some kind of petition? If enough people agree with this idea, maybe the forum administrators will react and introduce some kind of rule or restriction for bounty campaign organizers. Here you go. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293277.0)Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on November 25, 2020, 07:44:14 PM The avatar is a personal image of each user, I believe that the decision to use the avatar field in a campaign should be optional, not mandatory You're entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't keep your expectations high with regard to campaigns not wanting to rent out your avatar space. It's kind of prime digital real estate for advertising, which is why most campaigns require you to use an avatar that they designed.Personally, I hate avatars and have them on ignore so I don't have to see them--and that's not specific to bitcointalk; I've always thought they waste space (along with the signature) and make for more scrolling. But in any case, if you're going to join a campaign you've got to abide by their rules. I don't keep track of what campaigns are currently running, or how many there are, but I expect that the majority of them will require you to display their avatar. Some of them even require putting a message in your personal message space. But hey, good luck and I hope you find a campaign that won't require your avatar to be changed. And please, for the love of all that's evil, don't be a shitposter. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: qwertyup23 on November 25, 2020, 07:56:23 PM I only suggest that the user decide freely if they want to use their avatar or the signature image In my honest opinion, this falls upon the discretion of the campaign manager but I doubt that such request may be granted. If I were a businessman and I hired a campaign manager to advertise my business in the forum, I would mandatorily require wearing of avatars as a precondition to join the campaign due to more exposure. Though signatures give exposure already (relative to the rank of the user), seeing someone with an avatar has the impact of associating and remembering my business quickly. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: mk4 on November 25, 2020, 08:00:06 PM The avatar is a personal image of each user, It should somewhat be the same with your signature space, right? Since you pretty much display both information fields every time you post or create a topic. The solution here is pretty simple: don't join signature campaigns that requires you to change your avatar if your avatar is THAT important to you. The same way that you wouldn't apply for a job that's located in a city or street that you don't want to work in. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: FIFA worldcup on November 25, 2020, 08:00:26 PM I am considering the possibility of applying to a signature campaign, I have not done it yet because almost all signature campaigns require changing the avatar for its image The avatar is a personal image of each user, I believe that the decision to use the avatar field in a campaign should be optional, not mandatory One of the drawbacks I see is when you are reading posts in long threads or in different sections, you have to pay close attention to the answer you are reading and look at the username to know who it is, if this user uses their own avatar you recognize it right away, your brain already has it memorized If several users reply in the same thread with the same campaign on their avatar, then it becomes annoying to be constantly checking who the responding user is Is there any possibility of solving it by the forum administration? I only suggest that the user decide freely if they want to use their avatar or the signature image The Signature is also a personal space of the user and if you can rent the Signature space you can rent the avatar space too. If you do not want to include the image of the company in your avatar space, you can simply not join the campaigns where wearing avatar is mandatory. There are many campaigns where wearing avatar is optional and few gives few extra bucks for wearing the avatar. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: decodx on November 25, 2020, 08:44:18 PM Maybe it would be a good idea to organize some kind of petition? If enough people agree with this idea, maybe the forum administrators will react and introduce some kind of rule or restriction for bounty campaign organizers. Here you go. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293277.0)I see that you find voicing people's opinions to be a kind of mockery or folly. It's nice to be part of a privileged minority, isn't it? Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: actmyname on November 25, 2020, 08:46:06 PM I see that you find voicing people's opinions to be a kind of mockery or folly. It's nice to be part of a privileged minority, isn't it? I would like you to create a way to implement a petition that is not prone to Sybil attacks or centralization, without the use of any analog-based verification.If the forum followed a democratic pursuit in regard to rule-making then you would see it fall to the ground. How many accounts do you think would allow for the proliferation of increasingly shady scams? Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: decodx on November 25, 2020, 09:06:11 PM If the forum followed a democratic pursuit in regard to rule-making then you would see it fall to the ground. How many accounts do you think would allow for the proliferation of increasingly shady scams? I understand you and I agree with you to some extent. I'm not suggesting that central authority is inherently a negative thing for this community. However, it would also be nice to have a transparent procedure on some topics. As far as I can understand, the whole concept of decentralized currency and blockchain technology is based on that principle, right? Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: pugman on November 25, 2020, 10:03:26 PM I don't think this is that big of an issue in comparison to the ones that currently persist, and I get the point of why do I have to change my avatar when it is a "signature campaign". But if you want money, you gotta listen to what advertisers want. This isn't a forum related issue. This is more of a you and me, the general community's problem.
Give it a day or two, change your avatar if you really wanna go for a signature campaign. People will recognize you regardless because of your name and post quality, not by your avatar. Avatar just gives a feeling like: "Oh I know this guy, he has a really cool avatar!" or, "This avatar reminds me of a dumb joke I was laughing at 3 months ago at 7:39 AM in the morning huehuehue". Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: NavI_027 on November 25, 2020, 10:52:05 PM One of the drawbacks I see is when you are reading posts in long threads or in different sections, you have to pay close attention to the answer you are reading and look at the username to know who it is, if this user uses their own avatar you recognize it right away, your brain already has it memorized If only if such user only use one image for his avatar constantly. But how about those members who are spontaneous and change their avatar like the way they change their dp in their social medias ;D? How can you recognized them instantly? My point is, looking on one's name is still the best way to recognize a member. I only suggest that the user decide freely if they want to use their avatar or the signature image Of course you are free, all of us are free to do so. But if it violates the rules of the campaign then better to avoid doing so unless you are willing to lose payment lol. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: TheBeardedBaby on November 25, 2020, 11:11:25 PM There is a simple solution but it's in the hands of the campaign managers and not the admins. Just add extra payment for those wearing campaign avatars.
All the admins can do is make a general guidelines how to maintain a signature campaign but enforcing rules and regulations won't have a positive impact. There's another option. What I did was to propose a custom avatar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217201.msg55298018#msg55298018)with company's logo on it and the idea was quite accepted. Many from the same campaign followed this example and now I don't feel bad for creating a wall of the same avatars while replaying to someone from the same campaign. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: LTU_btc on November 25, 2020, 11:26:29 PM I don't think that these things should be regulated. IMO, it should be left for each campaign to decide themselves. If you don't want to lose your unique avatar, you simply don't join signature campaigns. It's normal thing that advertiser set such rules to get biggest visibility.
I remember that 4 or 5 years ago many campaigns didn't required to wear avatar. But for these who wear avatar, they paid extra bonus. But I agree with some your points. Personally, I so often confuse users from Foxpup's merit cycling club until I don't look at their name. What I did was to propose a custom avatar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217201.msg55298018#msg55298018)with company's logo on it and the idea was quite accepted. Many from the same campaign followed this example and now I don't feel bad for creating a wall of the same avatars while replaying to someone from the same campaign. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: Joel_Jantsen on November 25, 2020, 11:39:37 PM If several users reply in the same thread with the same campaign on their avatar, then it becomes annoying to be constantly checking who the responding user is That's exactly the reason why campaigns want you to wear the avatar it does the job of getting them famous around the forum especially if they have hired quality posters in their campaign! :) Remember all those annoying YouTube ads? You'd never use their product but sure you'd know such a product exists!Also, no one is forcing you to join a signature campaign. You can't be getting paid for a job and have your own rules while doing it. I don't understand the reasoning of some here. Title: Re: The Signature Campaigns would have to be optional in using the forum? Post by: nullius on November 25, 2020, 11:44:03 PM I am considering the possibility of applying to a signature campaign, I have not done it yet because almost all signature campaigns require changing the avatar for its image The avatar is a personal image of each user, I believe that the decision to use the avatar field in a campaign should be optional, not mandatory ::) <—snip—> I only suggest that the user decide freely if they want to <—snip—> this is nullius being succinct. “concision breeds precision (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg55147441#msg55147441)”, &c. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Augustus_Edwin_Mulready_Selling_out_1901.jpg/581px-Augustus_Edwin_Mulready_Selling_out_1901.jpg Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: Yogee on November 26, 2020, 05:06:26 AM ...One of the drawbacks I see is when you are reading posts in long threads or in different sections, you have to pay close attention to the answer you are reading and look at the username to know who it is, if this user uses their own avatar you recognize it right away, your brain already has it memorized What do you think of the cycling fox avatar?Quote If several users reply in the same thread with the same campaign on their avatar, then it becomes annoying to be constantly checking who the responding user is How? The avatar placement isn't that far from the username.Quote Is there any possibility of solving it by the forum administration? Forum administration also gave you the option to disable user's avatar. Check ✅ that in your profile [Look and Layout Preferences] and you should be good. You may find it easier to see the username that way. You may want to disable signature if ever you feel annoyed looking at them too. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: FullNode on November 26, 2020, 08:26:53 AM Guys, it seems that "some" do not interpret or do not want to interpret my post correctly, first of all I am not trying to ban anything, it is a totally legitimate suggestion, it is not a trick question, we can talk about this kind of topic calmly and as adults , without tearing our clothes ;)
The suggestion is directed to the forum, for this reason the thread was opened in Meta I am not against signature campaigns or showing advertising in the firm I know I am free to join a campaign If there are internal (business) reasons why the forum is not going to intervene, obviously there is nothing to object to I think that discussing forum topics, even if they aren't everyone's cup of tea, is good for the community I'd give some more merit,but I'm dry now Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: hilariousetc on November 26, 2020, 09:42:18 AM There is a simple solution but it's in the hands of the campaign managers and not the admins. Just add extra payment for those wearing campaign avatars. All the admins can do is make a general guidelines how to maintain a signature campaign but enforcing rules and regulations won't have a positive impact. There's another option. What I did was to propose a custom avatar (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217201.msg55298018#msg55298018)with company's logo on it and the idea was quite accepted. Many from the same campaign followed this example and now I don't feel bad for creating a wall of the same avatars while replaying to someone from the same campaign. Some do add extra payment for avatars, but most won't as they won't want to pay more and will probably feel like they're owed the avatar as well. Signature campaigns are in short supply so they can pay what they want and request as much ad space as possible including the avatar and people will still jump at the chance. Even if there was a choice and they do even pay a little extra most will probably still take it and give up their avatar space. I don't think that these things should be regulated. IMO, it should be left for each campaign to decide themselves. If you don't want to lose your unique avatar, you simply don't join signature campaigns. It's normal thing that advertiser set such rules to get biggest visibility. I remember that 4 or 5 years ago many campaigns didn't required to wear avatar. But for these who wear avatar, they paid extra bonus. Could we even have avatars 5 years ago? All users were unable to change them and new users couldn't have them at all back in the day. Quote If several users reply in the same thread with the same campaign on their avatar, then it becomes annoying to be constantly checking who the responding user is How? The avatar placement isn't that far from the username.It can be confusing. Your brain probably sees the image before the name and will automatically associate the image with certain users. I know I've been caught off guard with it both with other users and myself as there's a few people at least with the same avatar and sig combo as mine. Guys, it seems that "some" do not interpret or do not want to interpret my post correctly, first of all I am not trying to ban anything, it is a totally legitimate suggestion, it is not a trick question, we can talk about this kind of topic calmly and as adults , without tearing our clothes ;) The suggestion is directed to the forum, for this reason the thread was opened in Meta Well this is probably semantics. You obviously didn't literally call for a ban but you seemed to ask the forum to step in and regulate whether campaigns can command you to change it, which sounds like a ban on campaigns requesting you change it, which would be a ban on that practice in my opinion. It's a valid request, I just don't think theymos would intervene on the matter and the best practice here is like I and many others have suggested is to only join campaigns that don't demand the change. Chipmixer doesn't require an avatar so keep an eye on their thread for new sign-ups. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: FullNode on November 26, 2020, 10:33:54 AM Chipmixer doesn't require an avatar so keep an eye on their thread for new sign-ups. Being able to join the ChipMixer campaign would be great, I'll stay tuned thanksTitle: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: LTU_btc on November 26, 2020, 11:27:52 PM I don't think that these things should be regulated. IMO, it should be left for each campaign to decide themselves. If you don't want to lose your unique avatar, you simply don't join signature campaigns. It's normal thing that advertiser set such rules to get biggest visibility. I remember that 4 or 5 years ago many campaigns didn't required to wear avatar. But for these who wear avatar, they paid extra bonus. Could we even have avatars 5 years ago? All users were unable to change them and new users couldn't have them at all back in the day. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: Csmiami on November 26, 2020, 11:40:54 PM ---- Edit 2: Found it! The avatar related incident happened in 7 years ago (2013). The 2015 hack ended up with avatars being disabled but re-enabled in April 2015 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1008863.0) Quote from: Theymos source=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1nmdq4/bitcointalk_hacked/ Update: It's unfortunately worse than I thought. There's a good chance that the attacker(s) could have executed arbitrary PHP code and therefore could have accessed the database, but I'm not sure yet how difficult this would be. I'm sending out a mass mailing to all Forum users about this. Summary: The forum will be down for a while. Backups exist and are held by several people. At this time I feel that password hashes were probably not compromised, but I can't say for sure. If you used the same password on bitcointalk.org as on other sites, you may want to change your passwords. Passwords are hashed using sha256crypt with 7500 rounds (very strong). The JavaScript that was injected into bitcointalk.org seems harmless. Here's what I know: The attacker injected some code into $modSettings['news'] (the news at the top of pages). Updating news is normally logged, but this action was not logged, so the update was probably done in some roundabout way, not by compromising an admin account or otherwise "legitimately" making the change. Probably, part of SMF related to news-updating or modSettings is flawed. Possibly, the attacker was somehow able to modify the modSettings cache in /tmp or the database directly. Also, the attacker was able to upload a PHP script and some other files to the avatars directory. Figuring out the specifics is probably beyond my skills, so 50 BTC to the first person who tells me how this was done. (You have to convince me that your flaw was the one actually used.) The forum won't go back up until I know how this was done, so it could be down for a while. Surprised I found the reddit thread before the bitcointalk one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=306878.msg3290091#msg3290091).... I did happen to have a list of the campaigns not requiring avatars in both spanish and german threads updated to last weeks Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.0)so I'll post it in case anyone was curious enough. I do now have the doubt as to whether this are only the ones fitting that requirement while allowing local board posting; will have to check that, but list goes as follows: NO avatar: -Bustadice -ChipMixer -YOLOdice With a bonus: -Crypto Games (40$/mes) Other: -Best Change (seen some customized ones) Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: Mpamaegbu on November 27, 2020, 04:10:11 AM I'm still confused with my own posts sometimes :P Lol... Especially when you have users like o_e_l_e_o, suchmoon and The Pharmacist (who have the same avatar as yours) posting almost immediately after you did. Well, I do check closely to know who among you I am reading from.I think OP should find their way to the Chipmixer campaign where users aren't required to use the avatar. BTW, I have yet to see what the avatar does for any campaign as they don't even contain any link to project's/company's site. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: hilariousetc on November 27, 2020, 10:41:20 AM I don't think that these things should be regulated. IMO, it should be left for each campaign to decide themselves. If you don't want to lose your unique avatar, you simply don't join signature campaigns. It's normal thing that advertiser set such rules to get biggest visibility. I remember that 4 or 5 years ago many campaigns didn't required to wear avatar. But for these who wear avatar, they paid extra bonus. Could we even have avatars 5 years ago? All users were unable to change them and new users couldn't have them at all back in the day. It seems they were re-enabled on April the 1st 2015: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1008863.0 I now remember they came along with the April Fools Day prank that year. I wonder how long it was before people started monetising them? :D I'm still confused with my own posts sometimes :P Lol... Especially when you have users like o_e_l_e_o, suchmoon and The Pharmacist (who have the same avatar as yours) posting almost immediately after you did. Well, I do check closely to know who among you I am reading from.I think OP should find their way to the Chipmixer campaign where users aren't required to use the avatar. BTW, I have yet to see what the avatar does for any campaign as they don't even contain any link to project's/company's site. Neither does a billboard at the side of the road or on a TV advertisement, but they get the message/product out there and it's still very good brand awareness and I've always said that signatures and avatars here are just like digital billboards. Avatars might not be clickable but signatures are and they're usually for the same product so they go hand in hand, especially when it's the avatar that might first grab your attention. You could always use the Personal Text to direct users to click on the signature as well, if it'll fit, but most use that to link to the site or state a current offer or something. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: Little Mouse on November 27, 2020, 12:40:21 PM Projects are paying for the signature campaign and they are likely to get out the most from the campaign. I don't think forum administration will interfere in this issue. If all the users get united (which will be impossible), I think this can be done.
In your case, there are a few campaign which don't force the user to wear avatar. You can participate in those campaigns. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: SiNeReiNZzz on November 27, 2020, 01:32:35 PM As far as I know there is no avatar obligation for 1-2 campaigns in the forum, but for the majority of it for sure! Especially with Hhampuz campaigns.
BUT (look at my avatar for example) you can of course talk to the manager. I have done that as well. And as you can see, it seems to work! But probably not every campaign. If the operators would like to exploit every millimeter of advertising space... But I think individual design is better, than if all participants look the same. But since every campaign has a different operator behind it, it is simply not predictable. So if you want to take part in a campaign then there is nothing wrong with it, I think! As long as it is a trustworthy project/company, I don't see any problem to earn some pocket money, if you are active in the forum anyway, and good poster = good advertisers! It only becomes unpleasant, if it is approached from the other side, and you only post for your payment of the campaign... And secondlyBefore applying, simply speak to the respective campaign manager... I am sure that you will find out what works and what doesn't! Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: DdmrDdmr on November 27, 2020, 02:05:40 PM I was never into custom avatars myself, until last year’s 10th anniversary, and I’ve come to see it more as a sign of identity than a billboard. Seeing conversations stream by an array of uniformed avatars is not my piece of cake, although from a commercial point of view, it’s more space to advertise on for the same price, which is totally understandable.
Ideally, I’d go for (in this order): a) Having the avatar free from campaign requirements (not going to happen, especially when the precedent has been on for ages). b) Having campaigns self-decide to make corporate avatar optional. The costless approach would be to split the signature pay-out between avatar and signature (30/70 for example), so that one could decide to earn less from his campaign in favour of his own avatar (wonder how many people would opt-out of wearing a corporate avatar then…). c) Have it @TheBeardedBaby’s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1291828) way. This is likely not easy to extend, but it’s a nice compromise between wearing a custom avatar and wearing a corporate one. It won’t always work nicely (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=379147) though… Perhaps it being a possibility for certain ranks ony would delimit the scope of validation on the manager’s behalf. d) Leave it as is (which is what it will likely be, unless more campaign managers consider flexing the requirement). Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: AB de Royse777 on November 27, 2020, 08:46:35 PM There is a simple solution but it's in the hands of the campaign managers and not the admins. Just add extra payment for those wearing campaign avatars. Or do not join a campaign that requires the avatar to be occupied. It's a choice one makes. If one have a custom avatar and if they want it to have it all the time like Jet Cash - believing that this is giving them an identity then join a campaign like Chipmixer (good luck by the way :-P ) or similar campaign who only ask to rent the signature space. Quote All the admins can do is make a general guidelines how to maintain a signature campaign but enforcing rules and regulations won't have a positive impact. The forum is all about enjoying one's freedom and I do not think admin/s will ever bother about something which in fact is something they sometimes consider removing for good. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: shield132 on November 27, 2020, 09:12:17 PM Avatar is - personal image
Text under avatar is - personal text Signature is - personal space Home, Car, these are personal things but when you rent them, it means that a new person has the right to use it. So, when you want to apply in sig campaign, they have the right to request to get your sig, avatar and personal text place. They ask you for this, no one pushes you to rent any space that belongs to you. Btw I want to tell you one great fact about avatar and signature space. When I see posts that are written by our members who wear sportsbet avatar and chipmixer space, my brain has memorized and automatically understands that these should be high-quality posters and their posts deserve more attention from me. So, it has some cons for me... Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: decodx on November 27, 2020, 10:38:21 PM Or do not join a campaign that requires the avatar to be occupied. It's not too much of an option, is it? ;) The forum is all about enjoying one's freedom and I do not think admin/s will ever bother about something which in fact is something they sometimes consider removing for good. Judging by Coinbistro.com (Epochtalk testing ground) I don't think they're considering it anymore. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: jademaxsuy on November 27, 2020, 10:54:18 PM Signature and avatar are a way to advertise the project. Most likely people do not care on their avatar and are not personalize. Bounty managers and project owners take advantage on this by letting a mandatory to wear avatar to be able to be qualified and receive pay. Of course if you are in need to earn for the rewards then you need to comply the requirements set by the project owner. Since there are many bounty hunters so you will have no choice but to agree with them and get accepted among the applicants wishes to join the project.
Title: Hate speech against unpaid avatars Post by: nullius on November 28, 2020, 12:29:06 AM Or do not join a campaign that requires the avatar to be occupied. It's not too much of an option, is it? ;) As someone whose unpaid avatar has been bowdlerized0 due to its explicit implications (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293897.msg55699022#post_filling_the_void), I am deeply offended by your blatantly microaggressive prejudice against people who do not sell out their avatars for money.1 Hateful words can hurt! With your toxic exclusionary attitude, it is as if you would erase us from existence! 😭 0. If my unexpurgated avatar still shows in your browser due to caching, please cover your eyes so that I do not get in trouble. Thanks. 1. The offer that I briefly put in my personal text still stands: I am willing to rent out my avatar for not less than 20999999.9769 BTC (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply)/year. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: onecall123 on November 28, 2020, 07:02:01 AM Few projects have titled with just Signature Campaign and few others Signature and avatar Campaign. Both title actually says what they need, if you have personal issue pick only Sig campaign. Since there is no hidden jems, things are completely clear so we should user the full control whether he choose Sig or Sig+avatar campaign.
Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: AB de Royse777 on November 28, 2020, 05:12:57 PM It's not too much of an option, is it? ;) There are not many options indeed. I only found 2 or 3 active campaigns so far LOLQuote Judging by Coinbistro.com (Epochtalk testing ground) I don't think they're considering it anymore. Epochtalk! I wonder when and how we will move there. Very less hope in this from me however even if we do migrate this would not be easier to migrate from one platform to other consider the huge data SMF already have.Title: Re: Hate speech against unpaid avatars Post by: decodx on November 28, 2020, 09:50:12 PM Or do not join a campaign that requires the avatar to be occupied. It's not too much of an option, is it? ;) As someone whose unpaid avatar has been bowdlerized0 due to its explicit implications (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293897.msg55699022#post_filling_the_void), I am deeply offended by your blatantly microaggressive prejudice against people who do not sell out their avatars for money.1 Hateful words can hurt! With your toxic exclusionary attitude, it is as if you would erase us from existence! 😭 Far too many big words for my taste and this kind of interaction. ;) What hateful words? I'm just stating the facts; there's not a lot of campaigns that don't require a custom avatar. Don't you agree with that? Judging by Coinbistro.com (Epochtalk testing ground) I don't think they're considering it anymore. Epochtalk! I wonder when and how we will move there. Very less hope in this from me however even if we do migrate this would not be easier to migrate from one platform to other consider the huge data SMF already have.I strongly believe in "Where there's a will - there is a way". But is there a will? Title: Avatars discussion Post by: AB de Royse777 on November 29, 2020, 07:34:30 AM I strongly believe in "Where there's a will - there is a way". But is there a will? Amen! :-PTitle: Re: Avatars discussion Post by: Zicadis on December 01, 2020, 09:43:35 PM I understand that you want this option or even better a generalisation to all signature campaigns as a whole.
So this isn't going to be just for you but the rest of the users to be more easily recognised - I get it! To be honest, you're right that personal avatars will make users easier to remember, spot, or follow but as I see it there's no much that it can be done about it. Signature campaigns are optional anyway, and if you really don't want to change your avatar you can say so (some people might accommodate for that) but in my opinion not wearing the avatar just doesn't get the full attention deserved by the signature. This is why I think on this topic you might be representing a minority... Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: tbct_mt2 on December 02, 2020, 01:07:30 AM Few projects have titled with just Signature Campaign and few others Signature and avatar Campaign. Most of campaigns are signature & avatar campaigns though only a few campaigns are signature campaigns (don't require to wear avatars). I can give you very little campaigns: Chip Mixer, Bustadice. Best Change allows customized avatars but Best Change text need to have a place in avatars.Quote Both title actually says what they need, if you have personal issue pick only Sig campaign. Since there is no hidden jems, things are completely clear so we should user the full control whether he choose Sig or Sig+avatar campaign. When people join campaigns, by default they naturally accept to wear both signature and avatar (as most of campaigns require such).[Suggestion] Rules on Animated Images should be changed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5133915.msg50682230#msg50682230). It is my suggestion but I knew it won't be accepted. My hope goes on Epochtalk. https://bitcointalk.org/useravatars/avatar_20648.gif This avatar is funny, I thought it is an ant on my computer screen and try to clear it. ;D Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: Peanutswar on December 02, 2020, 02:21:04 AM I think this is part of the advertisement of the signature campaign they have the rights too if they want to add an avatar to make it noticeable to their future customer and its nothing wrong with this also you can ask the campaign manager too if you want to wear a customer avatar, still, it depends on their decision some of them restricting wearing of avatar and signature. It's your choice AFAIK ChipMixer allowed you not to wear an avatar and Bestchange allowed having a customer avatar.
This baits me to wipe my monitor just to remove the ant Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: libert19 on December 02, 2020, 04:19:49 AM I don't think admin should do anything about this, in most bounties it's optional and if you do wear it then there is extra pay for the same. Ignoring particular bounty is always the option you have.
Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: Chrystora123 on December 02, 2020, 07:16:17 PM I am considering the possibility of applying to a signature campaign, I have not done it yet because almost all signature campaigns require changing the avatar for its image We have to think realistically for this, imagine if you are a developer of (let's say) a gambling site, then you want to do a marketing campaign here, you pay with certain conditions so as a worker (hunter) must automatically follow the rules that the employer provides. at this time the developers require hunters to install their avatar, the rules must be followed (automatically)..The avatar is a personal image of each user, I believe that the decision to use the avatar field in a campaign should be optional, not mandatory One of the drawbacks I see is when you are reading posts in long threads or in different sections, you have to pay close attention to the answer you are reading and look at the username to know who it is, if this user uses their own avatar you recognize it right away, your brain already has it memorized If several users reply in the same thread with the same campaign on their avatar, then it becomes annoying to be constantly checking who the responding user is Is there any possibility of solving it by the forum administration? I only suggest that the user decide freely if they want to use their avatar or the signature image You think that Avatar is to recognize specifically (best reminder) I don't think so because we already have a "username" which is specifically not cloneable.. Title: Re: The Avatar would have to be optional in signature campaigns? Post by: DooMAD on December 02, 2020, 08:37:28 PM We, all together, make a bitcointalk forum. The voice of the community should have an impact. Staff and admins cannot exist without us just as we cannot exist without them. Maybe it would be a good idea to organize some kind of petition? If enough people agree with this idea, maybe the forum administrators will react and introduce some kind of rule or restriction for bounty campaign organizers. I'm convinced you'd have more luck taking your request direct to the campaign you'd like to join. Granted, it's rare for the applicant to dictate terms to the potential employer. As an analogy, if you work certain places at an entry-level position, maybe you're required to wear the company uniform. If you think you're good enough that you can ask them to make an exception and still get the job, give it a try. But you better be confident you've got something to offer above and beyond what others are able to contribute. Otherwise they might just give the job to someone who doesn't complain. This forum isn't exactly short on available workforce. It's up to you whether to risk it or not. Still, I think your chances are better with that approach, rather than trying to change forum rules. Also, consider the remote possibility that you were successful in getting the rules changed and what that might mean for all the campaign managers who would have to suddenly change their practices. If you effectively force their hand, some of them might not take kindly to that. It's conceivable that it might even harm your chances of getting accepted to a campaign if they believe you've brought any financial harm to their business model by bringing about the forum equivalent of regulatory hurdles and red tape. Careful what you wish for and such. |
