What is the purpose of signatures?

[cryptoGsus]

I understand that people have varying agreement on the negative aspects of signatures, but can someone tell me any positives?

Self-expression is not really necessary to be seen every time you post. If you have something interesting then it can be posted in your profile.

A quick pros vs cons makes me wonder why signatures still exist here.

[1715125436]

1715125436

[1715125436]

1715125436

[actmyname]

My argument would have been that users could post links to interesting discussions and threads that they enjoy/started that are of importance/substance but then we run into the problem where BCT has a minuscule number of people who would advertise them, and an even smaller amount of threads to be shown.

The profile is also not spacious enough unless the signature were replaced with a "bio" section and personal text does not support bbcode like the signature, though this is hardly an arguing point.

If anyone is able to come up with definitive positives then that would be great, but even I have to agree that it's difficult to find any. Preferably without involving signature campaigns in it - we all know the problems involved with them.

[shorena]

I understand that people have varying agreement on the negative aspects of signatures, but can someone tell me any positives?

Self-expression is not really necessary to be seen every time you post. If you have something interesting then it can be posted in your profile.

A quick pros vs cons makes me wonder why signatures still exist here.

Not sure what exactly your problem is with signatures per se. Wana elaborate?

#1 more room than in your profile
#2 better visibility than in your profile
#3 area where ref links are allowed
#4 allows formatting and/or colors depending on your rank

[roslinpl]

(...)
#1 more room than in your profile
#2 better visibility than in your profile
#3 area where ref links are allowed
#4 allows formatting and/or colors depending on your rank

^ I agree


Hey,

Signatures are cool spammers aren't. But it's not sig fault
Leave the sig alone!

Same knife can help you to prepare your food - same knife can kill somebody.


Best regards.

[cryptoGsus]

I understand that people have varying agreement on the negative aspects of signatures, but can someone tell me any positives?

Self-expression is not really necessary to be seen every time you post. If you have something interesting then it can be posted in your profile.

A quick pros vs cons makes me wonder why signatures still exist here.

Not sure what exactly your problem is with signatures per se. Wana elaborate?

#1 more room than in your profile
#2 better visibility than in your profile
#3 area where ref links are allowed
#4 allows formatting and/or colors depending on your rank

My problem is that it's just advertising space. The downsides of moving it to the profile would be heavily outweighed by the benefits of increased forum post quality.

[shorena]

I understand that people have varying agreement on the negative aspects of signatures, but can someone tell me any positives?

Self-expression is not really necessary to be seen every time you post. If you have something interesting then it can be posted in your profile.

A quick pros vs cons makes me wonder why signatures still exist here.

Not sure what exactly your problem is with signatures per se. Wana elaborate?

#1 more room than in your profile
#2 better visibility than in your profile
#3 area where ref links are allowed
#4 allows formatting and/or colors depending on your rank

My problem is that it's just advertising space. The downsides of moving it to the profile would be heavily outweighed by the benefits of increased forum post quality.

I tend to see little relation between post quality and signature in general. People post shit with or without, paid or unpaid, flashy or subtle signature. Yes getting paid per post (or flat) is an extra incentive for some to ask for a ban, but its not the only one. I see the spam as a moderation issue and think more (active) moderators and admins handing out well deserved bans are a solution.

[buwaytress]

Here's a positive: the sigs actually help me read posts in a thread better, if only as a sort of border in between posts.

This isn't to say I'd get lost in a thread without the sigs or that I'd face a difficult time navigating - it just to me seems to better space out and differentiate the text between posts. Even the avatar does the same for me.

[eddie13]

Because capitalism..

It's a big chunk of the communities economy, it has BTC flowing as an actual currency (imagine that), it's a great way for people to get their first little bits of BTC and start learning if they are otherwise incapable of purchasing..

If you don't like signature spammers I'd suggest you take it out on the company employing them, rather than wanting the government to solve all your problems for you with always more and more laws, do something about it yourself..

Go post in the companies threads about how you are sick of their spam with concrete references, get others to join you, blast their flagship threads with your disgust for their employees actions, call for a boycott against them by you and your likeminded, start a thread about it..

That's called the free market sorting it out..
If your ideals are shared by a strong segment of the people, and you are willing to speak up against the offenders of your ideals, then you will win..
If they are more powerful than you, more share their ideals, they will win..
In all actuality, it will eventually reach a balanced harmony between the varying degrees of ideals..

If you start pointing out their follies they will be forced to do something about it or accept that they look bad and are resented by all those who share your opinion, and lose your business..

Call em out on it..

[eddie13]

I see the spam as a moderation issue and think more (active) moderators and admins handing out well deserved bans are a solution.

Or..

Influential members such as yourself and others that feel the same way can easily speak up against them and force their hand to rectify the situation..

Take your greivences directly to the campaign managers and above their head if necessary in whatever company they are working for..

If you feel so strongly about it you could start tagging managers and company accounts that refuse to cooperate in reducing the spam they are employing..

I bet they'd shape up real quick if they started getting tagged themselves..
"allows spam in the sig campaign he manages"
"this company won't stop spamming our board"

Trusted/influential member: "Hey guy..If you don't stop the spam emanating from the campaign you manage I'm going to leave you red trust and go tell your boss to fire you.."

Trusted/influential member: "Hey guy.. If you don't fire and replace that lazy campaign manager of yours that is allowing spam to emanate from the campaign he is running, which is a responsibility of your company, then I distrust you and your entire company for allowing and promoting this trash"

(Trusted/influential member:) or even group of average members..
Email/pm/post bomb em like congressmen when you want your voice to be heard about what you think should or should not be done..

There you go, problem solved with no government, either they fix the problem or you rightly so wreck the reputation of their company..

I bet all it would take is 1..

[Lauda]

Influential members such as yourself and others that feel the same way can easily speak up against them and force their hand to rectify the situation..

There's not much that one can do when the manager or campaign in question either:
1) Acknowledges the problem, but effectively does nothing.
2) Completely dismissed your PM and/or ignores it.

Trusted/influential member: "Hey guy..If you don't stop the spam emanating from the campaign you manage I'm going to leave you red trust and go tell your boss to fire you.."

The question remains whether the usage of negative trust from the default trust network is appropriate for something like this  this.

[killyou73]

Influential members such as yourself and others that feel the same way can easily speak up against them and force their hand to rectify the situation..

There's not much that one can do when the manager or campaign in question either:
1) Acknowledges the problem, but effectively does nothing.
2) Completely dismissed your PM and/or ignores it.

Trusted/influential member: "Hey guy..If you don't stop the spam emanating from the campaign you manage I'm going to leave you red trust and go tell your boss to fire you.."

The question remains whether the usage of negative trust from the default trust network is appropriate for something like this  this.

But if 1 person the DT list went out of their way to leave negative feedback on lets say, 100 members in active signature campaigns than this would make them be kicked out of such said campaign because 99% of them do not allow "red" members to participate. But if the "red" is not clearly justified and this is all done in one day, I think issues would arise for such DT member

[shorena]

Influential members such as yourself and others that feel the same way can easily speak up against them and force their hand to rectify the situation..

There's not much that one can do when the manager or campaign in question either:
1) Acknowledges the problem, but effectively does nothing.
2) Completely dismissed your PM and/or ignores it.

Trusted/influential member: "Hey guy..If you don't stop the spam emanating from the campaign you manage I'm going to leave you red trust and go tell your boss to fire you.."

The question remains whether the usage of negative trust from the default trust network is appropriate for something like this  this.

But if 1 person the DT list went out of their way to leave negative feedback on lets say, 100 members in active signature campaigns than this would make them be kicked out of such said campaign because 99% of them do not allow "red" members to participate. But if the "red" is not clearly justified and this is all done in one day, I think issues would arise for such DT member

I think the idea to go after managers is better as its their job to do something about the spammers they ban as much as its the moderators.

[Lauda]

But if 1 person the DT list went out of their way to leave negative feedback on lets say, 100 members in active signature campaigns than this would make them be kicked out of such said campaign because 99% of them do not allow "red" members to participate. But if the "red" is not clearly justified and this is all done in one day, I think issues would arise for such DT member

I think the idea to go after managers is better as its their job to do something about the spammers they ban as much as its the moderators.

Indeed. Going after managers or services themselves is bound to be more effective than playing whack-a-mole with people who own 5-10 (if not more) accounts. This still comes back to the question whether it is appropriate usage for DT and whether we should do it or not. An organized effort between several DT members could swiftly deal with this problem.

[shorena]

But if 1 person the DT list went out of their way to leave negative feedback on lets say, 100 members in active signature campaigns than this would make them be kicked out of such said campaign because 99% of them do not allow "red" members to participate. But if the "red" is not clearly justified and this is all done in one day, I think issues would arise for such DT member

I think the idea to go after managers is better as its their job to do something about the spammers they ban as much as its the moderators.

Indeed. Going after managers or services themselves is bound to be more effective than playing whack-a-mole with people who own 5-10 (if not more) accounts. This still comes back to the question whether it is appropriate usage for DT and whether we should do it or not. An organized effort between several DT members could swiftly deal with this problem.

You know my stance on this, Im for it and will add my ratings. I just dont have the time to do it myself. IIRC other DT have also said they would support this.

[FFrankie]

But if 1 person the DT list went out of their way to leave negative feedback on lets say, 100 members in active signature campaigns than this would make them be kicked out of such said campaign because 99% of them do not allow "red" members to participate. But if the "red" is not clearly justified and this is all done in one day, I think issues would arise for such DT member

I think the idea to go after managers is better as its their job to do something about the spammers they ban as much as its the moderators.

Indeed. Going after managers or services themselves is bound to be more effective than playing whack-a-mole with people who own 5-10 (if not more) accounts. This still comes back to the question whether it is appropriate usage for DT and whether we should do it or not. An organized effort between several DT members could swiftly deal with this problem.

But managers are here to promote their site, will it really matter if they have red trust or not? Just look at bitcoin AG...

However, I do not see anything in the forum rules that alt accounts are wrong, or joining more than one signature campaign.

But most signature campaigns have clauses that limit one account per person in such campaign.

What is the issue with one person with 5 accounts in 5 different signature campaigns as long as they are not spamming?

[sgk]

I understand that people have varying agreement on the negative aspects of signatures, but can someone tell me any positives?

Self-expression is not really necessary to be seen every time you post. If you have something interesting then it can be posted in your profile.

A quick pros vs cons makes me wonder why signatures still exist here.

Not sure what exactly your problem is with signatures per se. Wana elaborate?

#1 more room than in your profile
#2 better visibility than in your profile
#3 area where ref links are allowed
#4 allows formatting and/or colors depending on your rank

My problem is that it's just advertising space. The downsides of moving it to the profile would be heavily outweighed by the benefits of increased forum post quality.

I share somewhat similar feeling. But you can easily opt for hiding signatures from your settings:

[Lauda]

However, I do not see anything in the forum rules that alt accounts are wrong, or joining more than one signature campaign.

That's a flaw in the forum's policy.

What is the issue with one person with 5 accounts in 5 different signature campaigns as long as they are not spamming?

Simple: They are spamming / shitposting.

You know my stance on this, Im for it and will add my ratings. I just dont have the time to do it myself. IIRC other DT have also said they would support this.

In that case, start here:
Service: Chronobank.io - Campaign - Manager: ahmed.chronobank # Has not logged in since December.
Service: Qtum - Campaign - Manager: BlackMambaPH # Is/was a borderline spammer himself.
Service: secondstrade - Campaign - Manager: None (?).

[minifrij]

I share somewhat similar feeling. But you can easily opt for hiding signatures from your settings:
snip

The signatures themselves aren't the problem. The incentivisation that they provide to posting low quality shit all over the forum is.

[killyou73]

What is the issue with one person with 5 accounts in 5 different signature campaigns as long as they are not spamming?

Simple: They are spamming / shitposting.


Yes, but I clearly stated that said users would not be spamming or shitposting. So than I take it that it would be okay for such users.

You know my stance on this, Im for it and will add my ratings. I just dont have the time to do it myself. IIRC other DT have also said they would support this.

In that case, start here:
Service: Chronobank.io - Campaign - Manager: ahmed.chronobank # Has not logged in since December.
Service: Qtum - Campaign - Manager: BlackMambaPH # Is/was a borderline spammer himself.
Service: secondstrade - Campaign - Manager: None (?).
[/quote]

Why not start with yobit spammers? There campaign is closed so we would definitely see a decrease in posts with no new members joining and only ones getting kicked out

[Lauda]

Yes, but I clearly stated that said users would not be spamming or shitposting. So than I take it that it would be okay for such users.

I'm not fine with one having that many accounts regardless of what they're used for. It is highly unlikely that one has 5 accounts enrolled in signature campaigns and is creating very constructive / useful posts. Anything under this kind of quality for this number of accounts I consider shitposting.

Why not start with yobit spammers? There campaign is closed so we would definitely see a decrease in posts with no new members joining and only ones getting kicked out

That campaign was last  managed (as still is?) by hilariousandco. Talk to him, not me.