Why are signatures allowed in the META forum?

[Jet Cash]

I also would probably suggest that this shop shouldn't take merit, but maybe it could take sMerit. This way people would not have to decide between de-ranking, signature features or keeping their progress. This way people would be encouraged to earn sMerit, instead of spending the merit they were given from the start. If people could simply spend their merit, too many people would be able to purchase from the shop undeservedly simply because they started out with 500 Merit. If we restrict it to sMerit, they would only be able to purchase from the shop with what they've earned (aside from the small amount of sMerit we got to start). We would probably need to set something special up for the Merit sources if we were to do something like this, for example they cannot use their Source merit to purchase from the shop, only the sMerit they have earned the same as everyone else.

I think sMerit should be left as it is (apart from a reduction the maximum award). It is a good way for posters to gain an idea of peer opinion. It was the merit that I was suggesting should be exchanged. I started with 500,which is the basic requirement for a Hero. If I exchanged part of that, then I should be demoted. My suggestion was to give the extra merits some value to members earning them.

With regards to campaign banners. They shouldn't be available through the shop, inclusion could give the impression that the board approves of the campaign.

[1714490570]

1714490570

[1714490570]

1714490570

[1714490570]

1714490570

[1714490570]

1714490570

[1714490570]

1714490570

[1714490570]

1714490570

[MadZ]

Might as well quote my post   I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad idea, this just isn't a good argument for it.

Literally the next line that you cut out of my quote, was me disagreeing with you. I don't know why you would take it out of context to pretend like I was agreeing with you, and using that as logic to justify my claim...

I thought it was pretty obvious you were disagreeing with me? I'm not sure how you read that as me quoting you out of context to support my argument. All I said was that while disabling signatures in Meta might be beneficial, the argument presented in the OP isn't the best one for it, as you can easily re-hash it to argue signatures shouldn't be allowed in any other sub-forum as well. In general, I think the quality of posts in Meta is much higher than other sections, so there is no immediate need for doing so.

Limiting signatures to only certain sections of the forum would not make Meta-Spam worse, so I disagree and I hope you don't somehow think this is me agreeing with you (again). Are you suggesting that these sections aren't already terrible? Disabling the signatures for your own eyes does not help the problem; there is still endless incentive for these people to spam these boards, so they will continue to post nonsense whether you can see their signatures personally, or not.

Suppose signatures were disabled in Bitcoin Discussion. Many sig spammers would be forced to find new sections to post in, and a certain percentage of them would post more often in Meta because of it. Removing signatures from a few sub-forums would just make the sections they aren't removed from even worse. It isn't a solution to the problem. And, frankly, I don't understand why you act like you're so against sig spamming, when you own multiple accounts yourself 

[MainIbem]

Removing signature or not is not the issue. I think the issue lie on managers counting signatures. There are so many managers that do not count posts for signature campaign when such posts are in certain boards of the forum; eg 'marketplace', 'bounty' section etc. So if the signatures are left but don't count is the same result.

The disadvantage will be that so many members will not want to comment on such areas.

[MadZ]

Removing signature or not is not the issue. I think the issue lie on managers counting signatures. There are so many managers that do not count posts for signature campaign when such posts are in certain boards of the forum; eg 'marketplace', 'bounty' section etc. So if the signatures are left but don't count is the same result.

The disadvantage will be that so many members will not want to comment on such areas.

Not all managers are created equal. For every responsible campaign manager, there are those who simply don't give a shit what quality of posts their participants are making, or where they're making them. It would be great if managers were willing to fix the problem, but most, at least for bounties where it costs them nothing to pay out participants because they can create tokens out of thin air, don't give a shit.

[bill gator]

All I said was that while disabling signatures in Meta might be beneficial, the argument presented in the OP isn't the best one for it, as you can easily re-hash it to argue signatures shouldn't be allowed in any other sub-forum as well. In general, I think the quality of posts in Meta is much higher than other sections, so there is no immediate need for doing so.

I misread that then, and I apologize for being a knucklehead. I thought you were saying that in reference to my argument, after thinking that you thought I had agreed with your argument; it was a big logistical mess on my behalf and I'll just consider it a brain-fart. I agree with everything you just said.

Suppose signatures were disabled in Bitcoin Discussion. Many sig spammers would be forced to find new sections to post in, and a certain percentage of them would post more often in Meta because of it.

Not if Meta was one of the disabled sections, which was the entire point of the OP. You are right though, whichever boards remain standing with signatures will be negatively affected by the shift of spammers and desperation.

The disadvantage will be that so many members will not want to comment on such areas.

It's a shame that the thread isn't much more than a page and you failed to read it.
I would simply refer you to an exchange earlier in the thread:

If you neeed to get payed to contribute, then your contribution is not needed.

This has yet to be refuted, at least in this context, because it is pretty sound logic if you ask me. Especially in a section as important as this.

Not all managers are created equal. For every responsible campaign manager, there are those who simply don't give a shit what quality of posts their participants are making, or where they're making them. It would be great if managers were willing to fix the problem, but most, at least for bounties where it costs them nothing to pay out participants because they can create tokens out of thin air, don't give a shit.

Would be nice if they followed and abide by the rules laid out in the only sticky of the Service section : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0 , do these guidelines get enforced, does anybody know? I haven't seen these shady/lazy or inconsiderate managers being tagged for this kind of thing. I also haven't spent much (or any) of my time looking for these instances.

[hilariousetc]

Removing signature or not is not the issue. I think the issue lie on managers counting signatures. There are so many managers that do not count posts for signature campaign when such posts are in certain boards of the forum; eg 'marketplace', 'bounty' section etc. So if the signatures are left but don't count is the same result.

The disadvantage will be that so many members will not want to comment on such areas.

Not all managers are created equal. For every responsible campaign manager, there are those who simply don't give a shit what quality of posts their participants are making, or where they're making them. It would be great if managers were willing to fix the problem, but most, at least for bounties where it costs them nothing to pay out participants because they can create tokens out of thin air, don't give a shit.

Why would most mangers want to do anything about it right now? They get paid for doing nothing so they're not going to want to drastically improve their workload whilst they can get away with it. That's even if they have a manager in the first place. Most ICO campaign don't because it's too much work for them and if they can get away with not doing anything then they will.

Would be nice if they followed and abide by the rules laid out in the only sticky of the Service section : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0 , do these guidelines get enforced, does anybody know? I haven't seen these shady/lazy or inconsiderate managers being tagged for this kind of thing.

Nope. That thread was largely a waste of time if theymos won't enforce it. The community should probably just take things into their own hands and start tagging the lazy campaigns and their managers. At least it worked with shitposters. It will work with campaigns as well.