Alt ideas other than merit system

[humantraffic]

So nobody liked my idea that bad campaigns should be banned, rather than a complete block on signatures ( which would kill the forum ).

The signature block will not kill the forum. The forum will become clean and here will be found and communicate cryptoanarchists. I agree that the forum will not be so popular, but it will not die.

[hilariousetc]

Poorly run campaigns were meant to have their signatures blacklisted/blocked from the forum by theymos to stop this from happening. Several poorly run campaigns were suggested but it never happened.

If that is technically feasible then I think it's a good idea. Getting someone like you to monitor campaigns and zap their signatures sounds like a great way to go.

It should be because theymos suggested it. As far as I recall he even agreed to it. It was at the same time we created the signature campaign guidelines and it was meant that those that didn't follow it even after warnings were supposed to have their signatures blacklisted for x amount of time if not permanent. Only theymos can blacklist them though and he probably doesn't have time to do that right now. The merit system alone isn't going to work and punishment for lazy campaigns who do little to nothing still needs to happen otherwise nothing will change.

[TryNinja]

[...] Chipmixer has a minimum requirement of 50 posts a week but we don't see any spam coming from their campaign.

You mean a maximum of 50 posts, right? ChipMixer's signature campaign doesn't actually require a minimum of posts per week.

I actually can't manage to hit 50 posts anymore due to how busy I am

[TheQuin]

Poorly run campaigns were meant to have their signatures blacklisted/blocked from the forum by theymos to stop this from happening. Several poorly run campaigns were suggested but it never happened.

If that is technically feasible then I think it's a good idea. Getting someone like you to monitor campaigns and zap their signatures sounds like a great way to go.

It should be because theymos suggested it. As far as I recall he even agreed to it. It was at the same time we created the signature campaign guidelines and it was meant that those that didn't follow it even after warnings were supposed to have their signatures blacklisted for x amount of time if not permanent. Only theymos can blacklist them though and he probably doesn't have time to do that right now. The merit system alone isn't going to work and punishment for lazy campaigns who do little to nothing still needs to happen otherwise nothing will change.

That old chestnut. A manager needs to be able to delegate to successfully run any enterprise. The same story with the hacked account recovery. If he could have delegated moderating signature campaigns then this would have been solved a long time ago.

Anyway, thanks for sharing a bit of forum history I didn't know about. I just assumed it hadn't happened because it couldn't happen.

[leevine77]

Ban signatures. Problem solved.

Why not include merit requirements in signature campaign?

I think if we ban signature bitcointalk will be cripple for it was started for a long time with signature campaign and more bitcointalk followers change lives from nothing to something.

Next, require the bounty manager to be more strict than before. Make the requirements harder.

[tranthidung]

Why not include merit requirements in signature campaign?

I think if we ban signature bitcointalk will be cripple for it was started for a long time with signature campaign and more bitcointalk followers change lives from nothing to something.

Next, require the bounty manager to be more strict than before. Make the requirements harder.

Actually, high paid signature campaigns have already had different payment rates for users who meet merit requirements and who don't. Most campaigns which paid in Bitcoin require merit points to join.
And their requirements for post quality are also high, too.
I think merit system has performed well in signature campaigns by its contributions to prevent low qualities but high ranked members to ask for joning.

[hilariousetc]

Ban signatures. Problem solved.

Why not include merit requirements in signature campaign?

I think if we ban signature bitcointalk will be cripple for it was started for a long time with signature campaign and more bitcointalk followers change lives from nothing to something.

Next, require the bounty manager to be more strict than before. Make the requirements harder.

If the merit system is already being abused by farmers and alts then it will just be abused in the same fashion as it already is. Whilst in theory it's one more hoop to jump through people will just find a way to game the system and several users have already been caught giving merit to others just so they could join campaigns. As for being more strict on campaign managers this is something I've been pushing for a while but we can't do anything without theymos' approval.

[Talk merit]

The signature block will not kill the forum. The forum will become clean and here will be found and communicate cryptoanarchists. I agree that the forum will not be so popular, but it will not die.

Just check the boards that block signatures to get an appreciation of what will happen. Don't forget that those who do post there, may not visit the forum if they can't display signatures elsewhere.

[motienvolam]

Just check the boards that block signatures to get an appreciation of what will happen. Don't forget that those who do post there, may not visit the forum if they can't display signatures elsewhere.

I suggest to block signature display in Meta board too. Why? As you can see around three months after launching day of merit system, Meta board has been polluted by hundreds of shitty posts from scammers, merit farmers, account farmers. They have visited the board to complain, to cry, to moan, and ridiculously to show their signatures up to our faces in order to hopelessly get merit points and money from their campaigns they participated in (mostly alt-campaigns).

[Talk merit]

I suggest to block signature display in Meta board too. Why? As you can see around three months after launching day of merit system, Meta board has been polluted by hundreds of shitty posts from scammers, merit farmers, account farmers. They have visited the board to complain, to cry, to moan, and ridiculously to show their signatures up to our faces in order to hopelessly get merit points and money from their campaigns they participated in (mostly alt-campaigns).

I think that is a great idea, and I'd support a vote on that.

[Lunarics]

Why waste time on trifles let's text the forum will do without Meta Board no smileys, no pictures. Let's remember how to play text games, imagination will replace everything )

[Inzanne]

well why the forum dosen't motivate people by choosing the best posts of each week of each level, and those chosen their posters will get merit depending on the quality of their posts and of course their level.

[btcsmlcmnr]

Why waste time on trifles let's text the forum will do without Meta Board no smileys, no pictures. Let's remember how to play text games, imagination will replace everything )

I don't really understand what you implied in your thread by using the attached image. What does it mean?
To say the truth, your thread likely non-sense and the image hurts my eyes a bit. Bright and contrast colors in the image, I think this image was terribly designed. What are purposes of the image is vague, too.

[1993jochico]

I suggest to block signature display in Meta board too. Why? As you can see around three months after launching day of merit system, Meta board has been polluted by hundreds of shitty posts from scammers, merit farmers, account farmers. They have visited the board to complain, to cry, to moan, and ridiculously to show their signatures up to our faces in order to hopelessly get merit points and money from their campaigns they participated in (mostly alt-campaigns).

I think that is a great idea, and I'd support a vote on that.

I also support this great idea, and also all posts on meta should not be counted on any signature campaigns.

[digaran]

The second solution is to remove/restrict the condition of minimum post count from signature campaigns.

A minimum post count is better than unlimited. Minimum post counts usually aren't excessive so the user isn't forced to make hundreds, but a user has to make a minimum of x amount posts otherwise people just won't do anything. A better solution would be to actually make managers do something about spam. When you have managers like sylon who accept hundreds of users and don't do any sort of quality checks then that's when they get abused. Chipmixer has a minimum requirement of 50 posts a week but we don't see any spam coming from their campaign. The onus should be on poor managers not what minimum amount of posts are required because any amount of posts will include spam if nobody is poling them.

then the sig campaign managers need to be approved to work on the forum? I know it is more work for someone, but if mods actively managed the signature campaign managers then it would stop the need for 50%+ of the post removals ETC.  It seems like more work for them initially but in reality it will make the mods life easier in the long run..

If a mod is a manager, you shouldn't let him decide who gets to be a manager.