[POLL] Should Signatures Be Banned?

[stingers]

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.

Those threads arnt for voting. And yes you have a valid point.

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

I am not on any side, I just wanted to see what the people want.

[jacktheking]

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.

[jeffthebaker]

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.

[joust]

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.

[oser41eric]

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.

[hilariousandco]

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.

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.

[nutildah]

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.

[CIYAM]

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".

[XinXan]

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 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.

[nutildah]

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

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.

[newb4now]

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.

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

[hilariousetc]

Individual sponsors running signature campaigns are free to accept or refuse posters based on the quality of their posts.

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.

[CEG5952]

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.

[BTCFaucets]

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

[Patatas]

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.

[CEG5952]

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.

[ColderThanIce]

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.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

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.

[Altcoin4life]

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.

[shad_90]

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