New sig campaign to end sig campaigns

[rebuilder]

Here's an idea:

How about those of us who don't appreciate what sig campaigns are doing to this forum decide to only start self-moderated threads, deleting any posts with sig campaign ads in them?

To get the idea to spread, we can use a sig of our own, come up with a slogan for it.

"END ADVERTISING SPAM - ONLY START SELF-MODERATED THREADS AND DELETE SIG CAMPAIGNER'S POSTS FROM THEM!"

Doesn't exactly roll of the tongue that way, but I'm sure we can work on that. How does it sound?

PS. I'd make this thread self-moderated but that's not possible on the meta subforum...

[hilariousandco]

You're free to do that but it'd be kinda redundant and likely just have the opposite effect. Once people realise that their posts will be deleted they'll either just not reply to your threads or create a new thread to respond to you in protest. I as well as many others already rarely post in and try avoid self-modded threads because people can just delete any posts they disagree with or don't like regardless of how constructive they are or whether they have a signature or not.

[mexxer-2]

I believe Danny(Hamilton) was running something similar(except for the self-mod thread part).

I as well as many others already rarely post in and try avoid self-modded threads because people can just delete any posts they disagree with or don't like regardless of how constructive they are or whether they have a signature or not.

This pretty much sums it up

[rebuilder]

Yes, the extrapolate-ad-absurdum result might be a "moderation market", where people only post in threads started by people they trust to fairly moderate discussion...

[Blue_Tiger73]

This a pretty stupid idea. A lot of people on this forum use a signature. This idea would be only for a small percentage of the people on this forum.

[rebuilder]

This a pretty stupid idea. A lot of people on this forum use a signature. This idea would be only for a small percentage of the people on this forum.

A pretty small precentage of the people on this forum actually contribute anything meaningful. And yes, I took a cursory look at your post history, you sig campaigner,  you.

[shorena]

IIRC CIYAM had a thread like that, not entirely sure what the topic was. I followed it for a while...

found it  -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=957789.0

BTT: Would this mean a post will be remove at any time later if the users changes their signature to a paid one? Will posts be restored if they remove the paid signature?

[rebuilder]

Shorena: I don't think it's possible for a user to restore posts they delete from a self-mod thread. As for deleting old posts, I expect that would depend on the user doing the moderating. Probably they'd be left in place most of the time. Too much work to keep track of every post, plus the point is to remove the incentive to post crap, not to remove ads per se. Providing a clean environment for discussion as it's happening should be enough.

[subSTRATA]

Shorena: I don't think it's possible for a user to restore posts they delete from a self-mod thread. As for deleting old posts, I expect that would depend on the user doing the moderating. Probably they'd be left in place most of the time. Too much work to keep track of every post, plus the point is to remove the incentive to post crap, not to remove ads per se. Providing a clean environment for discussion as it's happening should be enough.

paid signature or not, people exist that will post crap regardless. it's possible a thread started with the intent to keep out people with a paid signature might just attract dedicated trolls without a signature and clog up whatever discussion all the same.
if anything, the self modded threads' goal should be to cut out all crap regardless of who posts it.

[Amph]

IIRC CIYAM had a thread like that, not entirely sure what the topic was. I followed it for a while...

found it  -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=957789.0

BTT: Would this mean a post will be remove at any time later if the users changes their signature to a paid one? Will posts be restored if they remove the paid signature?

funny thing is that the thread was on the off-topic board, where most(if not all) of the sig campaign don't pay for it, so it was kind useless to do it in the first place

[rebuilder]

paid signature or not, people exist that will post crap regardless. it's possible a thread started with the intent to keep out people with a paid signature might just attract dedicated trolls without a signature and clog up whatever discussion all the same.
if anything, the self modded threads' goal should be to cut out all crap regardless of who posts it.

Yes, and signatures incentivize volume, not quality of posting, so targeting them specifically would seem a good way to improve the forum's overall quality of content. There's probably an interesting discussion to be had on whether we might be better off with more self-moderated threads in general - centralized vs. distributed moderation, essentially.

I'm just pointing out that for any users unhappy with moderation policy, as many seem to be in the case of the sig campaigns, the forum software does offer tools to use.

[Monumental]

We should persuade the signature campaigners to allow posting fewer than 30 posts a week. That will reduce the number of bad posts.

[ilvbtc]

The whole signature campaign stuff itself looks ridiculous/mess here.
Just do not understand if the very purpose of a campaign running is met or not.
What do you think the very primary/plain 'desired result' of the admins in starting their campaign programs?

[Lauda]

IIRC CIYAM had a thread like that, not entirely sure what the topic was. I followed it for a while...

found it  -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=957789.0

But that is bad IMO; that is a case of faulty generalization.

If you have an ad-sig then I will delete your post no matter how "relevant" you think it is

This would imply that e.g. posts of high quality (e.g. yours) would be deleted just because you're in a signature campaign.

Yes, and signatures incentivize volume, not quality of posting, so targeting them specifically would seem a good way to improve the forum's overall quality of content. There's probably an interesting discussion to be had on whether we might be better off with more self-moderated threads in general - centralized vs. distributed moderation, essentially.

Distributed moderation? No. This is just bad because people would censor each other because of various idiotic reasons (e.g. personal dispute) regardless of how good someone's post is. "Centralized" moderation with a fixed set of rules produces the best results.

[1Referee]

If you don't like signature campaigns, which I can understand due to the spammy posts, then you are free to create your own moderate threads, and also use DannyHamilton's ignore list to ignore 95% of the people with an ad.

Self moderation is not what the people want here, it's basically a tool for the creator of the OP to delete any post he want, even when there are people with sig ads that do post constructive and don't intend to spam.

We should persuade the signature campaigners to allow posting fewer than 30 posts a week. That will reduce the number of bad posts.

That could definitely help bring down the amount of spam significantly. People always seem to chase the maximum post count for the highest payout. If you reduce the weekly post cap by 50% then the posters won't need to brable nonsense to reach their week target.

[mexxer-2]

We should persuade the signature campaigners to allow posting fewer than 30 posts a week. That will reduce the number of bad posts.

That would increase the use of multiple accounts, and sales of accounts

[ilvbtc]

We should persuade the signature campaigners to allow posting fewer than 30 posts a week. That will reduce the number of bad posts.

That could definitely help bring down the amount of spam significantly. People always seem to chase the maximum post count for the highest payout. If you reduce the weekly post cap by 50% then the posters won't need to brable nonsense to reach their week target.
[/quote]

But can we expect them to compromise on post count when their very aim is their respective signatures being SEEN all over the forum and attract the attention of the new customers?

[1Referee]

We should persuade the signature campaigners to allow posting fewer than 30 posts a week. That will reduce the number of bad posts.

That could definitely help bring down the amount of spam significantly. People always seem to chase the maximum post count for the highest payout. If you reduce the weekly post cap by 50% then the posters won't need to brable nonsense to reach their week target.

But can we expect them to compromise on post count when their very aim is their respective signatures being SEEN all over the forum and attract the attention of the new customers?
[/quote]

Well, they can also only make their signature campaign available for Hero+ members in order to compensate for their lower post count. I assume that a Hero+ member wearing a paid sig ad has much more value then simply accepting Members, Full members, etc. Not that the lower account members have nothing constructive to say, but more the fact that you can easily farm these accounts and sell them if you so wish.

[rebuilder]

There's no reason for a campaign runner to want to restrict their campaigners' posting any further than absolutely necessary to comply with forum moderation policy. If you want to change the rules for campaigns, you have to get the policies changed, and that doesn't look likely.

The only other option seems to be to find ways to make life harder for ad spammers. I'm suggesting one such way here.

[Blazed]

There's no reason for a campaign runner to want to restrict their campaigners' posting any further than absolutely necessary to comply with forum moderation policy. If you want to change the rules for campaigns, you have to get the policies changed, and that doesn't look likely.

The only other option seems to be to find ways to make life harder for ad spammers. I'm suggesting one such way here.

Pretty cool idea good luck with it! I think there are several solid users here that do wear sigs that would be excluded, but that's just how it goes. It will be interesting watching a thread and see if your idea works out or not.