As I read in multiple posts in this thread I don't think it would have any added value to implement the functionality mentioned in OP.
A few facts I am considering in my reasoning:
- 1- Most sold account are bought to participate in signature campaigns
- 2- Most users buying high ranking account tend to be shitposting the hell out of it
- 3- Most bought accounts don't earny any merit, or just a few
- 4- When it comes to old accounts from before the merit system was created 2 & 3 remain true
- 5- It is still fairly easy to get 10 merit to be able to wear a signature, even without adding much value to the forum
Proposition 1It would be very nice to tie the signature function to the condition to have received 1 or several merit over the last 30 days for instance.
This would prevent bought accounts from wearing any, and should decrease the value of any account on the secondary market.
It would also make the merit begging not worth the time since it would have to be performed all the time.
Proposition 2Be able to flag or "tag" any account for shitposting. This could be done through the Trust system or by a separate function.
This would need to be tied either with a system deactivation of the signature space itself, or to new signature guidelines that would prohibit any user wearing red trust or such flag to join any signature campaign.
This would again decrease the value of sold accounts since (I hope) most of them get tagged.
My own experienceFew informations about my relationship to signatures:
I used to wear altcoin signatures for several bounties. I chose to stop doing this.
I started with bitcoin paid signatures with everybet, which terminated too soon, their site having issues.
I am know (obviously) wearing a BetItAll sign, also BTC paid.
2 advantages to this signature model:
- They are not stake based, so you are paid for what you are posting. But if you don't post, your share won't decrease like it would in a stake system. You simply get paid less for said period.
- The pay is fairly low. For northern countries standards anyway. I can hardly imagine people getting out of their way to earn a few cents/post. There are of course exception for the highest paying campaigns like Chipmixer, but this is counterbalanced by the high difficulty to join.
However there is also an issue:
Most of them are paid on a per post basis. While this makes perfect sense from an advertising point of view, it is still an incentive to post more, or outside your usual posting pattern, which can again lead to shitposting. This is of course down to the Bounty Manager's discretion. I believe most managers of BTC paid campaigns will carefully look at the posts and not pay for such "forced" postings that have little to no value.
Long story short, the manager holds all the power, but clear enforceable guidelines would help generalize the good behavior you can see from some well known managers.
Show Posts
Non en plus ce n'était pas un troll, simplement une question HS dans un sujet HS.
Ça donne quoi yangS, tu vas le récupérer ton compte ? 
