What is the purpose of signatures?

[shorena]

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.

Thats your personal problem though.

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.

What do you base this on? Considering that you yourself post sometimes 400 posts a month, you could easily split this among 5 accounts and enroll in 5 (different) signature campaigns. The number of accounts do not make a spammer, the post quality does.

[1714012167]

1714012167

[1714012167]

1714012167

[1714012167]

1714012167

[Lauda]

Thats your personal problem though.

Disagree. There are no justifiable use-cases for the majority. The occasional constructive user may have multiple accounts, but those are a very tiny minority. The rest are shit posters / account farmers.

What do you base this on?

I base that on the time spent moderating + managing hundreds of users in Bitmixer. I'm most certain that managers and moderators (those that are tackling spam in one way or another) are the most qualified people to talk about this situation, unless there are other individuals that are somehow involved (similar amount of time/effort).

Considering that you yourself post sometimes 400 posts a month, you could easily split this among 5 accounts and enroll in 5 (different) signature campaigns. The number of accounts do not make a spammer, the post quality does.

Good luck finding people that are willing to spend significant effort in a similar fashion.

[shorena]

No. There are no justifiable use-cases for the majority. to have several accounts

Sure, several, but feel free to debunk the for me most important ones:

1# privacy, allows users to voice unpopular opinion without fear for the main account.
2# security, users have a separate account for less secure systems.

Id even add #3 money to this list, AFAIK no campaign forbids users to have different accounts joined on a different campaign.

The occasional constructive user or two may have more accounts, but those are a very tiny minority. The rest are shit posters / account farmers.

What do you base this on?

I base that on the time spent moderating + managing hundreds of users in Bitmixer. I'm most certain that managers and moderators (those that are tackling spam in one way or another) are the most qualified people to talk about this situation, unless there are other individuals that are somehow involved (similar amount of time/effort).

In this case I would say Im qualified due to my work for BadBear. Lets assume it is as you say an the majority of multi accounters are shit posters. Why punish everyone without a way out or a chance of redemption? Why are you unable to let this get handled by mods? Why do you claim a duty that is not yet yours, as your rank among staff is not yet high enough?

[Lauda]

1# privacy, allows users to voice unpopular opinion without fear for the main account.
2# security, users have a separate account for less secure systems.

Those fall invalid as I'm solely talking about signature campaign participants that enroll a plethora of accounts in the same or multiple signature campaigns. I'm well aware of those reasonable use-cases.

In this case I would say Im qualified due to my work for BadBear.

I'm not familiar with it, but sure.

Lets assume it is as you say an the majority of multi accounters are shit posters. Why punish everyone without a way out or a chance of redemption?

What kind of redemption are you talking about?

Why are you unable to let this get handled by mods?

I'm just going to leave a link to this thread of farmed accounts and put a   in here.

[minifrij]

Why punish everyone without a way out or a chance of redemption?

I consider Lauda to be a fairly reasonable person. If a person improves their post quality and consistently post that way I see no reason why they wouldn't remove the negative trust attached to the account (as it would no longer be valid).

Why are you unable to let this get handled by mods? Why do you claim a duty that is not yet yours, as your rank among staff is not yet high enough?

Who do you think would do the work? The only person Global or above showing any interest in cracking down on spam on the forum is hilariousandco, and a task as widespread as cracking down on spam cannot be done by just one person who already has other responsibilities.
People are getting tired of the mindless spam all over the forum, as I would think you are. Negative trusting these users to prevent them from joining most campaigns is a good method of attempting to lessen the problem until the mods/admins show that they care at all.
It is getting past the point of it being acceptable. People are joining here specifically to join a signature campaign and spam shit for some coins. That isn't right.

[btvGainer]

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.

Distribution of wealth or in this case bitcoin may be the purpose For forum creators to allow signature campaigns.Bitcoin,as we all know was not popular and valuable in terms of dollar during it's initial days and it would have thought to be the best way to spread awareness and distribution through signature campaigns.
Pros : It definitely help in bitcoin adoption
Cons : Encourage account farming and shit posts

[shorena]

1# privacy, allows users to voice unpopular opinion without fear for the main account.
2# security, users have a separate account for less secure systems.

Those fall invalid as I'm solely talking about signature campaign participants that enroll a plethora of accounts in the same or multiple signature campaigns. I'm well aware of those reasonable use-cases.

You said there are none, I present you reasons and you call them invalid. Its fun discussing with you.

In this case I would say Im qualified due to my work for BadBear.

I'm not familiar with it, but sure.

Of course not.

Lets assume it is as you say an the majority of multi accounters are shit posters. Why punish everyone without a way out or a chance of redemption?

What kind of redemption are you talking about?

A first time offender is warned with a 7 day ban.

#1 What is your first time offender warning period?
#2 How do you keep track of possible repeated offenders?
#3 How can those that have received it appeal the punishment?

Why are you unable to let this get handled by mods?

I'm just going to leave a link to this thread of farmed accounts and put a   in here.

All I see is you evading my questions.

Why punish everyone without a way out or a chance of redemption?

I consider Lauda to be a fairly reasonable person. If a person improves their post quality and consistently post that way I see no reason why they wouldn't remove the negative trust attached to the account (as it would no longer be valid).

I used to think like that, but there are none of the common safeguards and (my) questions about them get ignored or waved off. Moderations has these in place, neg bombs by Lauda dont.

Why are you unable to let this get handled by mods? Why do you claim a duty that is not yet yours, as your rank among staff is not yet high enough?

Who do you think would do the work?

Global mods and Admins.

The only person Global or above showing any interest in cracking down on spam on the forum is hilariousandco, and a task as widespread as cracking down on spam cannot be done by just one person who already has other responsibilities.

I agree, we need more mods able to handle this. If theymos thinks Lauda is fit for the job, they should make Lauda a global mod with the powers needed to do it.

People are getting tired of the mindless spam all over the forum, as I would think you are.

I dont argue against the existance of the problem, I argue against the solution.

Negative trusting these users to prevent them from joining most campaigns is a good method of attempting to lessen the problem until the mods/admins show that they care at all.

I disagree.

It is getting past the point of it being acceptable. People are joining here specifically to join a signature campaign and spam shit for some coins. That isn't right.

Giving them negative ratings the way its currently done isnt either. Lauda agreed to go after managers, but instead keeps punishing campaigners. Lauda agreed to make a thread explaining their 'rules' for these ratings and how to get rid of them, they did not. They dont even bother to leave a reference anymore.

-snip-
@Lauda, could you also put some sort of reference link in the trust report just so it can be confirmed that the account was sold (I think trust seems more valid if it has an appropriate link of evidence attached to it - such as the sec-log data for both the change of password and email at the same time).

I'm not going to do that. The password change is already no longer visible here, not that this is relevant to my methods of uncovering account sales.

Keep in mind that Lauda themselves is in this current position of power (DT & Staff) because an admin lifted their ban (for spam). I dont think something like this is possible with the way Lauda currently handles the situation.

[Lauda]

You said there are none, I present you reasons and you call them invalid. Its fun discussing with you.

Those are general reasons to have alts, not reasons to have alts in campaigns which is what I'm arguing against. Therefore, the first two are invalid.

A first time offender is warned with a 7 day ban.

#1 What is your first time offender warning period?
#2 How do you keep track of possible repeated offenders?
#3 How can those that have received it appeal the punishment?

Again, I'm uncertain as to what you're targeting with those question as I can not punish people in this way. Elaborate?

All I see is you evading my questions.

The answer can be intuitively deducted.

I agree, we need more mods able to handle this. If theymos thinks Lauda is fit for the job, they should make Lauda a global mod with the powers needed to do it.

It doesn't even matter who it is, as long as they are active and properly moderate.

Lauda agreed to go after managers, but instead keeps punishing campaigners.

No, I have not. I have brainstormed the idea which didn't take off.

Lauda agreed to make a thread explaining their 'rules' for these ratings and how to get rid of them, they did not.

It is on the TODO list.

Keep in mind that Lauda themselves is in this current position of power (DT & Staff) because an admin lifted their ban (for spam). I dont think something like this is possible with the way Lauda currently handles the situation.

It was not lifted; I have served out my ban. I'm not sure what relevance that has with the 'way that I currently handle the situation'.

[minifrij]

Who do you think would do the work?

Global mods and Admins.

I was asking for specifics. Which Global mods/Admins do you think would deal with this currently?

I agree, we need more mods able to handle this. If theymos thinks Lauda is fit for the job, they should make Lauda a global mod with the powers needed to do it.

The problem seems to be that theymos doesn't agree. I (of course) have little idea what goes on behind the scenes, however I am fairly sure some staff members have been asking for a new global mod for a while just to be essentially ignored by theymos.

I dont argue against the existance of the problem, I argue against the solution.

Giving them negative ratings the way its currently done isnt either.

What would you propose to do differently? Wait for mods that are busy/don't care to handle the situation?

They dont even bother to leave a reference anymore.

From what I can see the vast majority of recent trust ratings left by them have contained a reference, which ratings are you talking about?

Keep in mind that Lauda themselves is in this current position of power (DT & Staff) because an admin lifted their ban (for spam).

Considering that Lauda was banned twice for spam, I believe they would have been only temporarily banned. If this is the case the ban wasn't lifted, they just served it out.

I dont think something like this is possible with the way Lauda currently handles the situation.

If anything it is easier for people to dispute these negative ratings than a forum ban.
A forum ban prevents those affected from posting anywhere other than Meta. A negative trust rating doesn't prevent anything other than joining a signature campaign or trading with others easily.

[ndnh]

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

Kinda makes pages more colorful

You can always just disable them. If majority disables the signatures, it is as good as that. The community makes the choice.


I personally agree with shorena.

If someone makes an account for every one of his posts, I wouldn't care as long as they aren't pointless meaningless posts.

[shorena]

You said there are none, I present you reasons and you call them invalid. Its fun discussing with you.

Those are general reasons to have alts, not reasons to have alts in campaigns which is what I'm arguing against. Therefore, the first two are invalid.

What about the 3rd?

A first time offender is warned with a 7 day ban.

#1 What is your first time offender warning period?
#2 How do you keep track of possible repeated offenders?
#3 How can those that have received it appeal the punishment?

Again, I'm uncertain as to what you're targeting with those question as I can not punish people in this way. Elaborate?

Your negative rating is a financial punishment removing them from almost all signature campaigns, making the account worthless for sale or as collateral and making deals in general sigificant more difficult.

All I see is you evading my questions.

The answer can be intuitively deducted.

Obviously I cant, hence Im asking.

I agree, we need more mods able to handle this. If theymos thinks Lauda is fit for the job, they should make Lauda a global mod with the powers needed to do it.

It doesn't even matter who it is, as long as they are active and properly moderate.

Lauda agreed to go after managers, but instead keeps punishing campaigners.

No, I have not. I have brainstormed the idea which didn't take off.

hm, alright, might have misunderstood. Why didnt it "take off"?

Lauda agreed to make a thread explaining their 'rules' for these ratings and how to get rid of them, they did not.

It is on the TODO list.

Keep in mind that Lauda themselves is in this current position of power (DT & Staff) because an admin lifted their ban (for spam). I dont think something like this is possible with the way Lauda currently handles the situation.

It was not lifted; I have served out my ban. I'm not sure what relevance that has with the 'way that I currently handle the situation'.

I know you dont see the resemblance. Even I godwin'd and you didnt get it.

Who do you think would do the work?

Global mods and Admins.

I was asking for specifics. Which Global mods/Admins do you think would deal with this currently?

All active ones. I feel Im missing the point, maybe rephrase the question?

I agree, we need more mods able to handle this. If theymos thinks Lauda is fit for the job, they should make Lauda a global mod with the powers needed to do it.

The problem seems to be that theymos doesn't agree. I (of course) have little idea what goes on behind the scenes, however I am fairly sure some staff members have been asking for a new global mod for a while just to be essentially ignored by theymos.

Thats still not a reason to use the trust system as a moderation tool. The end does not justify the means.

I dont argue against the existance of the problem, I argue against the solution.

Giving them negative ratings the way its currently done isnt either.

What would you propose to do differently? Wait for mods that are busy/don't care to handle the situation?

Yes, create enough threads in meta or PMs to make sure there is a need to solve this. If its not working, move on.

They dont even bother to leave a reference anymore.

From what I can see the vast majority of recent trust ratings left by them have contained a reference, which ratings are you talking about?

Ill take the point back, not because I think I am wrong or you are right, but because I dont think this is an important point and Id like to avoid getting lost in details.

Keep in mind that Lauda themselves is in this current position of power (DT & Staff) because an admin lifted their ban (for spam).

Considering that Lauda was banned twice for spam, I believe they would have been only temporarily banned. If this is the case the ban wasn't lifted, they just served it out.

It sounded differently when I and Lauda talked about it, but Im willing to accept that I just understood it wrongly. I also did not bother to contact BadBear about this, because it seems they are gone. This is one of my points though, Laudas trust ratings are not served out.

I dont think something like this is possible with the way Lauda currently handles the situation.

If anything it is easier for people to dispute these negative ratings than a forum ban.
A forum ban prevents those affected from posting anywhere other than Meta. A negative trust rating doesn't prevent anything other than joining a signature campaign or trading with others easily.

Its not served out though, you have to rely on Lauda to remove the rating. If Lauda thinks you didnt improve enough, thats it.

[Lauda]

What about the 3rd?

I'll give you that one. Even though I don't support creating multiple accounts solely to get paid, that's a justifiable use case. However, the likelihood of low quality posts/spam increases with the number of accounts.

Your negative rating is a financial punishment removing them from almost all signature campaigns, making the account worthless for sale or as collateral and making deals in general sigificant more difficult.

The amount of left ratings is negligible at this time. If you exclude the extreme account farmers, the total of negative ratings left (at this time) is 9 (solely for such behavior). Of which 5 are tagged by at least one more DT member. Had I been hunting down people for spamming with ratings, then we'd be talking about hundreds of ratings left. Anyhow, a fair deal of said ratings were revoked over time.

hm, alright, might have misunderstood. Why didnt it "take off"?

Theymos didn't like the idea of a joint 'DT group' using ratings in this way. I was and still am in favor of tagging managers/services that indirectly or directly endorse spam.

[shorena]

What about the 3rd?

I'll give you that one. Even though I don't support creating multiple accounts solely to get paid, that's a justifiable use case. However, the likelihood of low quality posts/spam increases with the number of accounts.

You dont remove the ratings based on that though, right? No, the number of accounts does not necessarily degrade the post quality. I could make every new post with a new account it wouldnt change the content of the posts.

Your negative rating is a financial punishment removing them from almost all signature campaigns, making the account worthless for sale or as collateral and making deals in general sigificant more difficult.

The amount of left ratings is negligible at this time. If you exclude the extreme account farmers, the total of negative ratings left (at this time) is 9 (solely for such behavior). Of which 5 are tagged by at least one more DT member. Had I been hunting down people for spamming with ratings, then we'd be talking about hundreds of ratings left. Anyhow, a fair deal of said ratings were revoked over time.

Yet you (or do others?) claim your ratings had a significant impact on spam. Both cant be true. If they dont matter, remove them.

hm, alright, might have misunderstood. Why didnt it "take off"?

Theymos didn't like the idea of a joint 'DT group' using ratings in this way. I was and still am in favor of tagging managers/services that indirectly or directly endorse spam.

Whats theymos stance on leaving ratings for spam?

[Lauda]

You dont remove the ratings based on that though, right?

Based on what? I don't quite follow.

No, the number of accounts does not necessarily degrade the post quality. I could make every new post with a new account it wouldnt change the content of the posts.

I'm not saying that it necessarily implies low posting quality, I'm saying that generally that is the case.

Yet you (or do others?) claim your ratings had a significant impact on spam. Both cant be true. If they dont matter, remove them.

I claimed that my ratings left for spamming had a significant impact on spam?

Whats theymos stance on leaving ratings for spam?

It's probably the same, although I asked specifically for that idea that I had. This is why I didn't follow up on it / DT1 members wouldn't support it either (even though every member I asked liked it).

[shorena]

You dont remove the ratings based on that though, right?

Based on what? I don't quite follow.

We just found a legit reason to have multiple accounts, thus there is no long a reason for you to assume having multiple accounts or engaging in account trades must always result in spam or scam. That would make it reasonable to remove the ratings you left with that reasoning.

No, the number of accounts does not necessarily degrade the post quality. I could make every new post with a new account it wouldnt change the content of the posts.

I'm not saying that it necessarily implies low posting quality, I'm saying that generally that is the case.

Which make your negative ratings a generalization.

Yet you (or do others?) claim your ratings had a significant impact on spam. Both cant be true. If they dont matter, remove them.

I claimed that my ratings left for spamming had a significant impact on spam?

At the very least you have to believe they reduce spam. Otherwise it would be pointless do leave them in the first place and instead of exchanging arguments with me, we both could do something (more) constructive.[1]

Whats theymos stance on leaving ratings for spam?

It's probably the same, although I asked specifically for that idea that I had. This is why I didn't follow up on it / DT1 members wouldn't support it either (even though every member I asked liked it).

I would think so too. Yet in one case you follow their advice in the other you dont. I wonder why.


[1] granted we both get paid (either directly or indirectly) for posting, Id still prefer to help someone in tech support et. al instead and Im sure you have other things on your plate as well.

[Lauda]

We just found a legit reason to have multiple accounts, thus there is no long a reason for you to assume having multiple accounts or engaging in account trades must always result in spam or scam. That would make it reasonable to remove the ratings you left with that reasoning.

This is inadequate reasoning for a removal of ratings on extreme account farmers and/or sold accounts. When did we switch subject to this now?

Which make your negative ratings a generalization.

Wrong, unless you're talking about other ratings. The spammers that received their ratings did not receive them on a whim.

At the very least you have to believe they reduce spam.

I do believe that it affects individuals, yes. To say that it had an 'significant effect' on spam would be an exaggeration. This will not be true unless it this was done by multiple people and on a much bigger scale.

Thats still not a reason to use the trust system as a moderation tool. The end does not justify the means.

I think that in certain situations the end does justify the means. I will not argue whether the usage of the trust system is not justified or not, as people have differentiating and often absolute stances on that.

Yes, create enough threads in meta or PMs to make sure there is a need to solve this. If its not working, move on.

How do you "move on" from a persistent/unresolved issue that has an effect on you in one way or another?

[shorena]

We just found a legit reason to have multiple accounts, thus there is no long a reason for you to assume having multiple accounts or engaging in account trades must always result in spam or scam. That would make it reasonable to remove the ratings you left with that reasoning.

This is inadequate reasoning for a removal of ratings on extreme account farmers and/or sold accounts. When did we switch subject to this now?

Probably because two discussions in two threads tend to get mixed up. So there is a valid reason to buy or sell acounts, but they still deserve a punishment?

Which make your negative ratings a generalization.

Wrong, unless you're talking about other ratings. The spammers that received their ratings did not receive them on a whim.

This would apply to sold accounts and account traders to be specific. Those where you claim that these actions result in scams and spams.

Account sales encourage different types of shady behavior (scams, spam, account farming, et al.).

At the very least you have to believe they reduce spam.

I do believe that it affects individuals, yes. To say that it had an 'significant effect' on spam would be an exaggeration. This will not be true unless it this was done by multiple people and on a much bigger scale.

Thats still not a reason to use the trust system as a moderation tool. The end does not justify the means.

I think that in certain situations the end does justify the means. I will not argue whether the usage of the trust system is not justified or not, as people have differentiating and often absolute stances on that.

You cant fully understand the end though as there are usually side effects and I would be surprised if this is an exception. Note for clarity: this is a philosophical remark[1] and not a threat.

Yes, create enough threads in meta or PMs to make sure there is a need to solve this. If its not working, move on.

How do you "move on" from a persistent/unresolved issue that has an effect on you in one way or another?

I impled that we leave the forum, I doubt that will be needed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

[Lauda]

So there is a valid reason to buy or sell acounts, but they still deserve a punishment?

There is a *single valid reason* (that we've identified in this thread) to have, not to purchase/trade/farm accounts. I don't see anything good coming from the latter, thus will keep my ratings on such accounts. This discussion is no longer exactly related to OP.

This would apply to sold accounts and account traders to be specific. Those where you claim that these actions result in scams and spams.

Correct and I stand by that.

I impled that we leave the forum, I doubt that will be needed.

Was this not the biggest Bitcoin forum, that would be no problem at all.

[layoutph]

Some people here are selling signatures in exchange of small fee from advertisers. Whats wrong with Forum signatures? All forum softwares has their built-in forum signatures for their members. Even email has signatures too.

By the way the link I am wearing now from my signature points to my own page. This is another form of promotion. Everyday I got one to 5 clicks, see by just participating to forum discussions my site got visited?

And I am thankful for the owner of this forum for having a clean, simple forum, no ads, and also allowing us to wear our own forum signatures.

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.

[coolcoinz]

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

Kinda makes pages more colorful

You can always just disable them. If majority disables the signatures, it is as good as that. The community makes the choice.


I personally agree with shorena.

If someone makes an account for every one of his posts, I wouldn't care as long as they aren't pointless meaningless posts.

But wait, there's more...
Allow people with not enough money to buy a forum banner still promote their business in their personal sig space.
Offer a decent visibility for the money, a banner on one of the big Bitcoin sites would cost much more than a small forum campaign.
Campaigns popularize Bitcoin. I'm sure some of the posters came to Bitcointalk because they heard campaigns pay much better than faucets. IMO, bitcointalk campaigns are currently the easiest way to earn coins. Don't require you to own a bank account and register on an exchange (especially that some exchanges request an ID).

I don't see any negative sides. Spam is not a negative side of having the signatures! If forum did not allow to use sigs, people would spam links or PMs, or use their avatars to advertise and still get paid for it.