I will agree with sig campaign if every campaign manager review all the participant's post, they will be accepted if their posts are constructive . I do not agree with bitmixer and coinomat, so far, I see 23 members of Indonesian board who wearing their signature and almost all of them gave nothing but BS and spam post.
I think this is an interesting angle that is often un explored - why not help the signature sponsors hold their participants more accountable?
I can't imagine that signature sponsors really want the forums to be full of useless posts that they pay for. If the problem is mostly the useless posts, though I agree it is surprising that the forum allows its users to compete with it, then maybe they are a more useful avenue to pursue?
Is there some kind of enhanced reporting that could be turned on? Like a special moderator category, sig sponsors get it and signature participants have to enable it. In addition to a report button there is a report to sig sponsor button?
I realize it is just easier to ban sigs, and am encouraged by bad bear's statements that improvements are in the works. But I think when done responsibly signature campaigns can allow people to get a little btc to play around with, especially now that mining and faucets are not a realistic way for new users to get started.
