Proposal: Disallow Ads in Signatures

[nahtnam]

At this point, I am going to ignore any posts that are not relevant to the topic.

[1714172061]

1714172061

[1714172061]

1714172061

[Cryptopher]

Here is a prime example on what goes on in threads. People go off topic on threads about things that can be discussed through PM's. This unnecessarily bumps old threads.

hehe, indeed...

After all, they need the posts as they get paid by them.

Also nice to see how quickly they softball each other to keep the illusion of meaningful posts/replies alive.

What matters here is, would any of this conversation since nahtnam's interjection have happen had myself and/or apsvinet not had paid signatures?

Of course not, because people are quick to pounce on honest members while spam bots, actual spammers and scammers roam the boards.

If members of this community wouldn't get so butthurt over paid sigs then perhaps we'd make some progress with the real issues around here.

This thread wouldnt exist if it werent for paid sigs. Even I have a paid sig, BUT I have a personal deal. I get paid a set amount of money no matter how much I post, I really dont have an incentive so I dont spam, but you on the other hand get paid per post which gives you a huge incentive to spam. Im not saying that you are a spammer, but it would be great if you didnt go off topic on threads. Anything off topic should be through PMs.

It just irks me that paid sig (per post) users get scrutinised so much more than any other member, despite so many other users constantly going off-topic or breaking some other rule.

I mean the speed in which you responded to my reply suggests that you were monitoring the thread, waiting for a moment to make comment. You were right, it did go off-topic, but I just don't believe that it would have been jumped on were I simply a regular sig user.

[FalconFly]

Look at his signature space, "This space can't be bought, just like it's owner" or whatever.
They're just like 90% of everyone else in this thread trying to make advertising cheap, and people earning money for advertising cheap.
"Oh, so you're earning a few extra cents per month? Scum of the earth, I presume."
It's someone trying to "Prove a point" about his own signature space, and implies that if you sell yours you have sold your soul.

Technically speaking, I'm not against using the sig to represent or even advertise a 3rd party...

It's what is being advertised is what catches my eye. Nothing but scams or skimming sites, rigged gambling sites (where rigging got so normal, they even openly admit or advertise with it) and other questionable "services".

Not far down the road, and people would advertise for human trafficing, drugs, slaves and any other contraband if they could just get away with it - just for as long as they make a little profit off it.

You'll never find me questioning anyone giving his sig to a good cause. Why should I ?
It's the complete absence of morale and ethics - sold out for a few Satoshis - that I point my finger at.
I simply won't have warm&nice words to folks who count money with a grin on their face, earned by assisting to channel unsuspecting people into places where they get skinned left&right.
(this is exactly what a banker does to its clients or a slimy insurance agent that tries to talk elderly people into a contract - people here actually compete with those)

[nahtnam]

Look at his signature space, "This space can't be bought, just like it's owner" or whatever.
They're just like 90% of everyone else in this thread trying to make advertising cheap, and people earning money for advertising cheap.
"Oh, so you're earning a few extra cents per month? Scum of the earth, I presume."
It's someone trying to "Prove a point" about his own signature space, and implies that if you sell yours you have sold your soul.

Technically speaking, I'm not against using the sig to represent or even advertise a 3rd party...

It's what is being advertised is what catches my eye. Nothing but scams or skimming sites, rigged gambling sites (where rigging got so normal, they even openly admit or advertise with it) and other questionable "services".

Not far down the road, and people would advertise for human trafficing, drugs, slaves and any other contraband if they could just get away with it - just for as long as they make a little profit off it.

You'll never find me questioning anyone giving his sig to a good cause. Why should I ?
It's the complete absence of morale and ethics - sold out for a few Satoshis - that I point my finger at.
I simply won't have warm&nice words to folks who count money with a grin on their face, earned by assisting to channel unsuspecting people into places where they get skinned left&right.

At this point its not satoshis, its 0.1-0.5 BTC per month (average)...

[FalconFly]

To me, the price paid makes no difference. What it's being paid for is the issue.
What they say is true... Almost everyone has a price.

But it must be said, it's a harsh world and everyone is free to choose.

[Cryptopher]

Look at his signature space, "This space can't be bought, just like it's owner" or whatever.
They're just like 90% of everyone else in this thread trying to make advertising cheap, and people earning money for advertising cheap.
"Oh, so you're earning a few extra cents per month? Scum of the earth, I presume."
It's someone trying to "Prove a point" about his own signature space, and implies that if you sell yours you have sold your soul.

Technically speaking, I'm not against using the sig to represent or even advertise a 3rd party...

It's what is being advertised is what catches my eye. Nothing but scams or skimming sites, rigged gambling sites (where rigging got so normal, they even openly admit or advertise with it) and other questionable "services".

Not far down the road, and people would advertise for human trafficing, drugs, slaves and any other contraband if they could just get away with it - just for as long as they make a little profit off it.

You'll never find me questioning anyone giving his sig to a good cause. Why should I ?
It's the complete absence of morale and ethics - sold out for a few Satoshis - that I point my finger at.
I simply won't have warm&nice words to folks who count money with a grin on their face, earned by assisting to channel unsuspecting people into places where they get skinned left&right.

At this point its not satoshis, its 0.1-0.5 BTC per month (average)...

Varies due to referrals?

[nahtnam]

Look at his signature space, "This space can't be bought, just like it's owner" or whatever.
They're just like 90% of everyone else in this thread trying to make advertising cheap, and people earning money for advertising cheap.
"Oh, so you're earning a few extra cents per month? Scum of the earth, I presume."
It's someone trying to "Prove a point" about his own signature space, and implies that if you sell yours you have sold your soul.

Technically speaking, I'm not against using the sig to represent or even advertise a 3rd party...

It's what is being advertised is what catches my eye. Nothing but scams or skimming sites, rigged gambling sites (where rigging got so normal, they even openly admit or advertise with it) and other questionable "services".

Not far down the road, and people would advertise for human trafficing, drugs, slaves and any other contraband if they could just get away with it - just for as long as they make a little profit off it.

You'll never find me questioning anyone giving his sig to a good cause. Why should I ?
It's the complete absence of morale and ethics - sold out for a few Satoshis - that I point my finger at.
I simply won't have warm&nice words to folks who count money with a grin on their face, earned by assisting to channel unsuspecting people into places where they get skinned left&right.

At this point its not satoshis, its 0.1-0.5 BTC per month (average)...

Varies due to referrals?

Well if you use Stunnas sig, it varies with the amount of posts.

[Cryptopher]

Look at his signature space, "This space can't be bought, just like it's owner" or whatever.
They're just like 90% of everyone else in this thread trying to make advertising cheap, and people earning money for advertising cheap.
"Oh, so you're earning a few extra cents per month? Scum of the earth, I presume."
It's someone trying to "Prove a point" about his own signature space, and implies that if you sell yours you have sold your soul.

Technically speaking, I'm not against using the sig to represent or even advertise a 3rd party...

It's what is being advertised is what catches my eye. Nothing but scams or skimming sites, rigged gambling sites (where rigging got so normal, they even openly admit or advertise with it) and other questionable "services".

Not far down the road, and people would advertise for human trafficing, drugs, slaves and any other contraband if they could just get away with it - just for as long as they make a little profit off it.

You'll never find me questioning anyone giving his sig to a good cause. Why should I ?
It's the complete absence of morale and ethics - sold out for a few Satoshis - that I point my finger at.
I simply won't have warm&nice words to folks who count money with a grin on their face, earned by assisting to channel unsuspecting people into places where they get skinned left&right.

At this point its not satoshis, its 0.1-0.5 BTC per month (average)...

Varies due to referrals?

Well if you use Stunnas sig, it varies with the amount of posts.

But you use referral in your sig, don't you? That must net you some coin

[nahtnam]

Look at his signature space, "This space can't be bought, just like it's owner" or whatever.
They're just like 90% of everyone else in this thread trying to make advertising cheap, and people earning money for advertising cheap.
"Oh, so you're earning a few extra cents per month? Scum of the earth, I presume."
It's someone trying to "Prove a point" about his own signature space, and implies that if you sell yours you have sold your soul.

Technically speaking, I'm not against using the sig to represent or even advertise a 3rd party...

It's what is being advertised is what catches my eye. Nothing but scams or skimming sites, rigged gambling sites (where rigging got so normal, they even openly admit or advertise with it) and other questionable "services".

Not far down the road, and people would advertise for human trafficing, drugs, slaves and any other contraband if they could just get away with it - just for as long as they make a little profit off it.

You'll never find me questioning anyone giving his sig to a good cause. Why should I ?
It's the complete absence of morale and ethics - sold out for a few Satoshis - that I point my finger at.
I simply won't have warm&nice words to folks who count money with a grin on their face, earned by assisting to channel unsuspecting people into places where they get skinned left&right.

At this point its not satoshis, its 0.1-0.5 BTC per month (average)...

Varies due to referrals?

Well if you use Stunnas sig, it varies with the amount of posts.

But you use referral in your sig, don't you? That must net you some coin

No, I dont. That link just came with the signature.

[Cryptopher]

Look at his signature space, "This space can't be bought, just like it's owner" or whatever.
They're just like 90% of everyone else in this thread trying to make advertising cheap, and people earning money for advertising cheap.
"Oh, so you're earning a few extra cents per month? Scum of the earth, I presume."
It's someone trying to "Prove a point" about his own signature space, and implies that if you sell yours you have sold your soul.

Technically speaking, I'm not against using the sig to represent or even advertise a 3rd party...

It's what is being advertised is what catches my eye. Nothing but scams or skimming sites, rigged gambling sites (where rigging got so normal, they even openly admit or advertise with it) and other questionable "services".

Not far down the road, and people would advertise for human trafficing, drugs, slaves and any other contraband if they could just get away with it - just for as long as they make a little profit off it.

You'll never find me questioning anyone giving his sig to a good cause. Why should I ?
It's the complete absence of morale and ethics - sold out for a few Satoshis - that I point my finger at.
I simply won't have warm&nice words to folks who count money with a grin on their face, earned by assisting to channel unsuspecting people into places where they get skinned left&right.

At this point its not satoshis, its 0.1-0.5 BTC per month (average)...

Varies due to referrals?

Well if you use Stunnas sig, it varies with the amount of posts.

But you use referral in your sig, don't you? That must net you some coin

No, I dont. That link just came with the signature.

Fair play, although it is an affiliate link for somebody - even if it isn't you who is reaping the rewards, somebody is haha. A fixed payment scheme would much better suit my intermittent activity on Bitcointalk - though unfortunately I don't see that option being made widely available for obvious reasons.

I always thought that Stunna (and co) should employ a whitelist approach - have a team of say the top 5-10 trusted participants and only let them take part. After all, they would likely make up more than half of all posts. Just a thought.

[IamCANADIAN013]

One of the reasons I really liked the fact we could use ads in the sig with colors was that I could easily scroll down and find my posts.  Now that my sig is generic like most, its a pain in the ass. 

What are the chances that we will be able to use pictures with our profiles? I understand that there were issues in the past, but is there a chance they will be brought back?

[nahtnam]

One of the reasons I really liked the fact we could use ads in the sig with colors was that I could easily scroll down and find my posts.  Now that my sig is generic like most, its a pain in the ass. 

What are the chances that we will be able to use pictures with our profiles? I understand that there were issues in the past, but is there a chance they will be brought back?

They were enabled but they are now disabled. I don't think they will be enabled anytime soon because they are somewhat resource intensive and you can upload inappropriate images.

[Light]

They were enabled but they are now disabled. I don't think they will be enabled anytime soon because they are somewhat resource intensive and you can upload inappropriate images.

As far as I remember there was a hack that was involved with the use of avatars on this forum and ever since theymos has had the functionality turned off. Although, I'm pretty sure it'll come back with the new forum software if that ever comes... 

[nahtnam]

They were enabled but they are now disabled. I don't think they will be enabled anytime soon because they are somewhat resource intensive and you can upload inappropriate images.

As far as I remember there was a hack that was involved with the use of avatars on this forum and ever since theymos has had the functionality turned off. Although, I'm pretty sure it'll come back with the new forum software if that ever comes... 

There is going to be a new forum software?

[Light]

They were enabled but they are now disabled. I don't think they will be enabled anytime soon because they are somewhat resource intensive and you can upload inappropriate images.

As far as I remember there was a hack that was involved with the use of avatars on this forum and ever since theymos has had the functionality turned off. Although, I'm pretty sure it'll come back with the new forum software if that ever comes... 

There is going to be a new forum software?

Yeah, I'm surprised you don't know about this. It's in meta as well.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455867.0

[nahtnam]

They were enabled but they are now disabled. I don't think they will be enabled anytime soon because they are somewhat resource intensive and you can upload inappropriate images.

As far as I remember there was a hack that was involved with the use of avatars on this forum and ever since theymos has had the functionality turned off. Although, I'm pretty sure it'll come back with the new forum software if that ever comes... 

There is going to be a new forum software?

Yeah, I'm surprised you don't know about this. It's in meta as well.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=455867.0

$350K ?!?!? Do you know if its going to be SMF or something else?

[Light]

$350K ?!?!? Do you know if its going to be SMF or something else?

I haven't been following it much, as generally forum software (esp for this one) takes quite a while so yeah. If I recall correctly I think it isn't SMF, but don't quote me on that one.

[nahtnam]

$350K ?!?!? Do you know if its going to be SMF or something else?

I haven't been following it much, as generally forum software (esp for this one) takes quite a while so yeah. If I recall correctly I think it isn't SMF, but don't quote me on that one.

Alright. Thanks a lot for the update!

[SaltySpitoon]

Its not descrimination against signature advertising participants, its statistics. If you live in an area with 100 people, and there is a car accident every two years, your car insurance is going to be lower based on the statistical information the insurance company has on what is has had to pay out, rather than living in a highly populated area with lots of wrecks. Same thing here, the percentage of paid advertising spammers is far higher than any other usergroup, so measures were taken. While you are correct that they are the minority technically speaking, it has got completely out of hand, and Im quite happy about the new signature restrictions. I'd be happier with an activity based paid advertising system, or none at all for that matter, but I do believe people are entitled to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't negatively effect others. Spam effects others.

[Cryptopher]

Its not descrimination against signature advertising participants, its statistics. If you live in an area with 100 people, and there is a car accident every two years, your car insurance is going to be lower based on the statistical information the insurance company has on what is has had to pay out, rather than living in a highly populated area with lots of wrecks. Same thing here, the percentage of paid advertising spammers is far higher than any other usergroup, so measures were taken. While you are correct that they are the minority technically speaking, it has got completely out of hand, and Im quite happy about the new signature restrictions. I'd be happier with an activity based paid advertising system, or none at all for that matter, but I do believe people are entitled to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't negatively effect others. Spam effects others.

Sure, so long as you treat each user group with equal scrutinisation. The increased likelihood of spam for a paid ad sig user is a fair observation, we have seen some people who take the piss with this - and they have been dealt with.

The definitive way to combat spam is to report it on sighting, right? None of this 'Oh they have a paid signature, they must chat a lot of crap - let's find a reason to hate on them'.

The forum changes don't really affect me in a great deal, as I am a casual user of the forum, but I am keen to stress that this restriction isn't the final solution, the solution is in the community taking an active role in reporting rule breakers, irrespective of signatures.