My basis for the 2 BTC amount is that 50 BTC is for VIP. 20% of the VIP amount is 10 BTC, for Donator. 20% of that would be 2 BTC, for Supporter.
I would be more then happy to donate 2 BTC if I would receive some kind of "supporter" tag and/or if theymos was soliciting donations. However the forum is currently self sufficient and theymos has repeatedly said that the forum is not in need of additional money/donations.
I think 2 BTC would be more appropriate if the forum was in some kind of need for additional money and it was for something other then to enable signature features.
I agree that they wouldn't pay. The spamming would cease as the account would have no value if it couldn't be used for signature campaigns. You seem to think people would still pay for accounts if the accounts couldn't generate BTC. They wouldn't.
Exactly. This is what I've been trying to say. These accounts would not be worth as much as they are now (why would they be?) if there was no way to get 'ROI' for the buyer. Over time there would be a huge decline in sales and spam.
If signature campaigns were to outright stop (for whatever reason) then the value of accounts would likely crash and the amount of useless posts by people with
paid signatures would also decline substantially. I might speculate that the volume of accounts traded might go up as people might be interested in buying accounts at fire-sale prices, hoping that signature campaigns would make a return appearance, giving value to accounts once again.
I do not think that many of the shit-posters would donate and would instead choose to take the short-sided approach of continuing to post while receiving a lower signature payment, which I believe will further decrease the market prices of signatures of lower level members.
The is the part that I don't understand. Exactly how would they choose a "short-sided approach" and receive a lower signature payment when they are unable to have a signature in the first place?
Right now, based on the various account pricing websites and the auctions that I see, high-level accounts sell for amounts that would allow someone to quickly ROI with signature payments alone. Also many of the signature spammers put very little effort into their "work" of posting. I also have observed many signature spammers decline to "invest" the small amount of time required to even briefly read a small number of posts in a thread prior to posting nonsense.
(please note that what you had quoted was discussing what was essentially a "fork" of what OgNasty proposed in that people would need to pay a nominal amount in order to "unlock" the signature features of senior members+.)
I got silent cause of policing, cant say bout others,that too full of close mindedness,illogical, IMO's ,power-trip policing
and also the fact that how they all sort out ratings and support each other.Doo definitely deserves the red mark for the ponzi script coding according to the policing i see here but they are afraid to point out the Gods.Fucking cliques. Soooo much
hypocrisy.
That's strange. Just stay away from the things that tend to make you receive a negative trust rating and you should be fine. DT members should not give you rating based on the things that you've said.
I think you know very well that most people cannot reasonably describe what to "avoid" in order to avoid potentially receiving negative trust from someone in the DT network. What will "trigger" a negative rating has been greatly expanding in the past several months to well beyond the intended "someone is a scammer, or you strongly believe that someone is a scammer". There is also one member in the DT network that
will openly give negative trust because you say something he disagrees with.....however that is off topic here...
2 BTC was mentioned, someone said that was crazy high, i agree its high. You could charge on a monthly basis 0.1 or 0.05.
Your suggestion is absurdly foolish. Charging a monthly basis of that amount, which is lower than what some earn in 1 week, will do nothing at all.
Why is that foolish? If you charge an amount that is greater then someone can reasonably expect to earn via their signature over a medium amount of time then no one will pay the "fee" and you are essentially banning signature campaigns.
If you pay 0.05 btc every month on the 1st, then you will be risking that 0.05 btc in the event that you post enough crap so that you get banned.
I don't like this idea however because the amount that people post varies too much as this will be a pittance to some signature advertisers while it would be more then what some signature advertisers will earn in a month, effectively banning signature campaigns for people that do not post very much.
Nothing will change as this conversation has been done 100 times already. The only solution is ban paid campaigns...period. The forum wants the activity so this will not happen.
The signature spam problem has been attacked in some ways, with results that I was very impressed with. Take a look at
this thread/rule clarification in the off-topic section, and notice how the thread like "how long have you been logged in", "what is your favorite drink", and "what is the last movie you have watched" are no longer active (they actually have been locked. I would also say that Grue's signature ad block script has also helped the problem somewhat, although to somewhat of a lesser extent.
Awesome,so are we going to keep branching out and applying negative trust to stuff?
How exciting...
-snip-
Most of the stuff posted is not a valid reason to provide negative trust, ergo you are appealing to emotion and being hyperbolic.
It is true that most of the stuff Slowturtleinc is not a valid reason to leave a negative rating, although I would argue that a good ~16 of the reasons listed essentially are the reason for a negative rating that someone has left that is in the DT network.
let me say that any escrow effected by the banning of account sales deserves to be effected... I do not touch account escrows because I think it is dishonest at best, and perpetuating scamming at worst.
As someone who previously assisted with escrowing forum accounts, I can say that the amount of money you will earn from dealing with forum account deals is in no way worth the amount of time required to facilitate these kinds of deals. There were often many concepts that needed to be explained to one or both parties to a transaction, and the amount of details that need to be checked as part of a transaction means that it would often take 15-20 minutes to facilitate a deal that is not disputed, and when you are often receiving your minimum tip/fee of 2-3 dollars, that works out to essentially minimum wage. The primary reason why I was willing to facilitate these deals was to prevent someone from being able to scam via these deals. Although some people believe that account trading is dishonest, I do not believe these people would be happy if someone got scammed just because they tried to buy or sell an account, especially if the person who got scammed was otherwise honest.
The only losers here are people who want to get something for nothing.
QS note: I believe this is in reference to people who have paid signatures but do not give anything to the forum (this was inserted to give context to this quote)
The forum is currently self sufficient, and it is self sufficient because it is able to sell advertisements for (far) greater then it's operating expenses. The forum is able to sell advertisements at this price because of the number of page views that it gets. Users with paid signatures often will not participate in the forum (or their participation would be greatly reduced) if it were not for their paid signature. Users with paid signatures are essentially giving the forum additional page views (which allows the forum to sell it's advertisements at a higher price).
When I first came to these forums, everyone had their address in their signature. This was because they would help someone with a problem and receive tips from users for being helpful. It was great. The forum was full of helpful people growing interesting ideas and quality conversation. Now, users are incentivized to ask dumb questions and disappear or fake goods sales to their alt accounts wasting everyone else's time who responds to their threads. Wouldn't it be better if we as a community got back to tipping people for being helpful instead of paying them to spam us?
Perhaps even a "community tipper" of some kind could be introduced, where a portion of the donations received is paid back to helpful members of the community.
I would personally love to see an environment that you describe from when you first joined.
I have seen that kind of behavior take place on reddit a little bit. I am not sure why it does not take place here anymore.
(interestingly enough, I have actually asked one Legendary member for help with a couple of high value trades in the past, solicited a donation address after the help/advise was received and received a message declining a tip/donation).
Only in Bitcoinland do people complain about a 20 month ROI. Rest assured that signature campaigns would have to pay more.
Exactly.
There should be no ROI at all.Why do you think this? If someone is considering to donate money in return for their ability to receive payments to advertise for a third party but has no chance to earn a return on their initial payment + the time/effort they put into their posts that serve as advertisements then they will have zero incentive to donate the money in the first place.
Edit: For the record I get paid a fixed amount(like say Blazed) regardless of whether I post or not
I think that the people who say they receive a "fixed amount" are somewhat misleading others as to the details of their arrangement. As a general rule, the "fixed rate" deals have a minimum number of posts that must be made in order to be eligible for payment, and if this is not true, then advertisers will take into consideration how many posts such person is making on a regular basis when deciding if they wish to continue their arrangement.
Here's an idea that could work but probably won't happen because of the complexity:
In order to have a signature, an account must be, say, at least full member and the user must give 2BTC to the forum. However, instead of that 2BTC being a donation, it would rather be a security deposit. After the user posts at least 1000 posts over the course of two years, he can get 1.5BTC back, the remaining 0.5BTC becoming a donation. However, in order to get that 1.5BTC back, the user must also not have more than 25 posts deleted over the two years, and no more than 10 instances where more than 20 posts are made in a twenty four hour period. He must also never receive a ban within those two years. Only when these requirements are met can the user receive the 1.5BTC back.
I like the concept behind this, however I think some of the specifics should be changed.
If you have 3 active marketplace threads open for one year then you will potentially bump them a total of 1,000 times, and if you forget to delete your old bumps only 2.5% of the time then you will be over the limit.
When I was more active last year, there were some periods when I would average 26 posts per day over a month, however my posts were good enough so that third parties were willing to pay significantly above market prices for the right to advertise on my signature. I believe that there are many other high quality posters that have frequently exceeded 20 posts in a 24 hour period.
