Suggestion for the Admin (Admin please read)

[Joseph R. Cord]

Hello everyone, I really hope Admin reads this post once, it would be really "HELPFUL" to make the forum "BETTER".

My suggestion is to have some system which "DISABLE" Signature on important sections like "META", "SCAM ACCUSATION" and some others anyone got in mind.

Right now, people are "PROMOTING" by creating scenes on such sections by keeping their signatures and acting all good.

Here are some Examples - (NOTE) - I have removed the text, as I simply wanted to show the Signature, all these are in "SCAM ACCUSATION" and "META" section.

And the below examples are just "FEW", the whole section is only filled up with these Promotion.

The Most interesting part of this is that BESTMIXER.IO promoters have SAME LINK, which is this -

https://bestmixer.io/?p=5MOHGRTv93&s=bitcointalk.org

I know writing this is easy and doing it something very very hard, but probably IF "ADMIN" can look into it and see IF this is possible. I believe it will make those sections "BETTER" and will help beginners getting targeted "LESSER".

Let see what others feel about this suggestion?

[1715604886]

1715604886

[1715604886]

1715604886

[1715604886]

1715604886

[suchmoon]

I feel you're going full Thule. Stop spamming this nonsense, it's not gonna remove your red trust.

[Joseph R. Cord]

I feel you're going full Thule. Stop spamming this nonsense, it's not gonna remove your red trust.

When did I asked to remove my red trust? I have given a suggestion whether it's useful to "DISABLE" Signature for such sensitive sections or not?

What is non-sense in this?? Is giving suggestion consider "NON-SENSE"? Or spamming?

IF You dislike the suggestion, that is fine no one can force you to "LIKE", the forum is for EVERYONE to give their suggestions.

[bL4nkcode]

There are boards and threads that signatures are hidden, like on serious discussion board and its sub-board, also in Wall Observer. Now if you don't want to see any signature you can disable it on your profile -> Look and Layout Preferences then check the Don't show users' signatures..
Note that it will disable all signature on any board of the forum, only on your part.

[Joseph R. Cord]

There are boards and threads that signatures are hidden, like on serious discussion board and its sub-board, also in Wall Observer. Now if you don't want to see any signature you can disable it on your profile -> Look and Layout Preferences then check the Don't show users' signatures..
Note that it will disable all signature on bitcointalk, only on your part.

You are right, so why not apply it on some more sections?

Obviously it's not about me not wanting to see Signature, It's about stopping people from using those "IMPORTANT" boards from getting "USED" for personal purposes. I am sure it won't HELP Bitcointalk getting better by letting people do promotion on sections which is created to make things better.

So don't you agree on that part?

[suchmoon]

I feel you're going full Thule. Stop spamming this nonsense, it's not gonna remove your red trust.

When did I asked to remove my red trust? I have given a suggestion whether it's useful to "DISABLE" Signature for such sensitive sections or not?

What is non-sense in this?? Is giving suggestion consider "NON-SENSE"? Or spamming?

IF You dislike the suggestion, that is fine no one can force you to "LIKE", the forum is for EVERYONE to give their suggestions.

This suggestion has been brought up previously, coincidentally by a red-trusted individual. It didn't go anywhere and I doubt this time will be different. If you're interested in making the forum better you should search/read more and post less.

[Foxpup]

You are right, so why not apply it on some more sections?

Because those signature-free sections were created specifically to address the spam problem in the Off-topic board. But there is no spam problem in the sections you specified, so nothing needs to be done. You're not seriously suggesting that the users who tagged you did so simply so they could spam their signatures, are you?

[Joseph R. Cord]

I feel you're going full Thule. Stop spamming this nonsense, it's not gonna remove your red trust.

When did I asked to remove my red trust? I have given a suggestion whether it's useful to "DISABLE" Signature for such sensitive sections or not?

What is non-sense in this?? Is giving suggestion consider "NON-SENSE"? Or spamming?

IF You dislike the suggestion, that is fine no one can force you to "LIKE", the forum is for EVERYONE to give their suggestions.

This suggestion has been brought up previously, coincidentally by a red-trusted individual. It didn't go anywhere and I doubt this time will be different. If you're interested in making the forum better you should search/read more and post less.

So you judge suggestions based upon whether it's from "RED" trusted or "GREEN" trusted individuals? If so that's pretty sad, especially given this "SECTION" itself disable people to see trust, so that every suggestion has "SAME" value as it would be for anyone. But sad to see your bias mindset. But anyway, it's okay.

I was not aware that it was previously brought up, but I guess there is nothing wrong IF it's brought up again, I don't think these are type of suggestions that can be done "OVERNIGHT", so who knows Admin MIGHT be working on something? The world runs on hope, and I hopeful Admin much like has done in other sections will "APPLY" it for some more sections as suggested, rest it's only the Admin who decides.

I prefer making it better this way, and I hope I don't need your permission to do so. As whatever I am doing is "WITHIN" what the rule says. I have only given suggestion, it might be liked/disliked, it's entirely a person's own view but everyone is "FREE" here to give their suggestions. As ultimately ADMIN is one who decides IF it's worthy or not.

You are right, so why not apply it on some more sections?

Because those signature-free sections were created specifically to address the spam problem in the Off-topic board. But there is no spam problem in the sections you specified, so nothing needs to be done. You're not seriously suggesting that the users who tagged you did so simply so they could spam their signatures, are you?

Why don't you kindly leave me alone? There is "NOTHING" I have written about "ME" here. I have only "GIVEN" suggestion, and majority of the people you see on the "SCREENSHOT" are ones that are "NOT" Capable of leaving tags (feedback), so why would I bring them into it? BTW, What's your views on all of them using "SAME" Links? Anyway, I simply meant the section should be "FREE" from such activities and for a moment, forget them but will not in FUTURE someone try this technique?

Because everyone is interested in supporting the person who "CREATED" the thread, and appreciation but no one looks much into whether the allegation was correct or false, so is this not the "EASIEST" route to promoting?

Like I have said, this is just MY suggestion much like "MANY" might have given theirs. If people dislike it, I am okay because everyone is FREE in their thinking.

[LeGaulois]

I don't find advertisements on Bitcointalk too intrusive. But if you're bothered with it you can disable avatars and signatures in your profile settings in "Look and Layout Preferences". Not sure if it's a feature that depends on the user's rank, I noticed it long ago, take a look at it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

When did I asked to remove my red trust?

You're not asking for it directly, just like you're not making this thread because you're disgruntled with the trust system...right? 

Come on, what you're doing is transparent.  And it's also kind of passive-aggressive, which I can't stand on the internet along with not being able to easily interpret someone's tone anyway.  Just be upfront.  You're angry about the negative trust you got.

This suggestion has been brought up previously, coincidentally by a red-trusted individual.

Yep, and again, if OP had ever visited Meta or Scam Accusations this thread wouldn't even exist because he wouldn't have plagiarized a whitepaper--or would have expected the consequences.  And he'd know this suggestion is old territory.

[Joseph R. Cord]

I don't find advertisements on Bitcointalk too intrusive. But if you're bothered with it you can disable avatars and signatures in your profile settings in "Look and Layout Preferences". Not sure if it's a feature that depends on the user's rank, I noticed it long ago, take a look at it.

I already replied to same suggestion above. I think there is "NOTHING" to lose with the thing I suggested, at least there is no "PERSONAL" benefit in this for me. So it's just for the FORUM.

When did I asked to remove my red trust?

You're not asking for it directly, just like you're not making this thread because you're disgruntled with the trust system...right? 

Come on, what you're doing is transparent.  And it's also kind of passive-aggressive, which I can't stand on the internet along with not being able to easily interpret someone's tone anyway.  Just be upfront.  You're angry about the negative trust you got.

This suggestion has been brought up previously, coincidentally by a red-trusted individual.

Yep, and again, if OP had ever visited Meta or Scam Accusations this thread wouldn't even exist because he wouldn't have plagiarized a whitepaper--or would have expected the consequences.  And he'd know this suggestion is old territory.

But see tell me, how do you know I have red trust? You won't know IF you are looking at this "THREAD" only. But IF you go on my profile then only you will be able to know that. And nowhere in the post I have mentioned "TRUST" or "FEEDBACK" system. In fact, the question is FAR away from that. It's purely based upon "SIGNATURES", so again where did the trust system comes in?

You are right that it's transparent, but only for those WHO are "FOLLOWING" me. So just imagine, you just opened this thread today, and got NO CLUE about the stuff around me. So, will it be so "TRANSPARENT" for you? No it won't be because you "TRUST" is "DISABLED" here, so the ONLY WAY you know it when you actually "KNOW the HISTORY" of me.

And just for ONCE tell me what's wrong with my suggestion, is it going "BENEFIT" me? And also what's wrong with applying this suggestion? I believe it can only make forum better? If people on their good great intention then why will they bother IF this change happens?

[Quickseller]

We already have a section that has signature ads (actually all signatures) disabled. It is the serious discussion section. Anything is allowed there except advertisements and posts requesting a response from the administration.

Sections like meta and scam accusations are important and this is why they are moderated less strictly than the rest of the forum.

[Joseph R. Cord]

We already have a section that has signature ads (actually all signatures) disabled. It is the serious discussion section. Anything is allowed there except advertisements and posts requesting a response from the administration.

Sections like meta and scam accusations are important and this is why they are moderated less strictly than the rest of the forum.

Although, I was not aware of this but anyway this is already mentioned above. So, I feel it shouldn't be exactly a major task to have it applied on Scam Accusation and Meta Section.

Do you think it's not required? Especially when you yourself say it's "Moderated less strictly", so will this not help?

Again what's to lose IF this happens? I mean when the "INTENTION" is to decrease scams, then does it really matters whether Ads are ALLOWED or not?

[Joel_Jantsen]

Do you think it's not required? Especially when you yourself say it's "Moderated less strictly", so will this not help?

Again what's to lose IF this happens? I mean when the "INTENTION" is to decrease scams, then does it really matters whether Ads are ALLOWED or not?

Signature campaigns are an important part of the forum and disallowing signatures in multiple boards will not benefit the signature campaign that is being advertised. Will they come to advertise their service on the forum knowing their advertisement are banned from the multiple sections of the forum? No. Just because you have a red tag doesn't mean others should suffer.

[Joseph R. Cord]

Do you think it's not required? Especially when you yourself say it's "Moderated less strictly", so will this not help?

Again what's to lose IF this happens? I mean when the "INTENTION" is to decrease scams, then does it really matters whether Ads are ALLOWED or not?

Signature campaigns are an important part of the forum and disallowing signatures in multiple boards will not benefit the signature campaign that is being advertised. Will they come to advertise their service on the forum knowing their advertisement are banned from the multiple sections of the forum? No. Just because you have a red tag doesn't mean others should suffer.

Multiple boards? My suggestion is "SIMPLY" about SCAM Accusation and META boards. How exactly does this make "OTHERS" suffer.

This is GIGANTIC FORUM and I "BET" only 5% people would be visiting "THOSE SECTIONS" for posting. So HOW does it make "OTHERS" suffer.

It will only make "THOSE" suffer who got WRONG INTENTIONS and use those boards for their "OWN BENEFITS"

And do you really are trying to say "Advertisers" are interested in "THOSE" sections? As I thought these 2 sections are purely based to help the forum, not to help "PROMOTIONS".

BTW, how does "RED TAG" tag comes into this?

The whole suggestion is about Signatures, nothing else. So whether I have "RED", "GREEN", or "PURPLE" tag, it's irrelevant!

[Quickseller]

We already have a section that has signature ads (actually all signatures) disabled. It is the serious discussion section. Anything is allowed there except advertisements and posts requesting a response from the administration.

Sections like meta and scam accusations are important and this is why they are moderated less strictly than the rest of the forum.

Although, I was not aware of this but anyway this is already mentioned above. So, I feel it shouldn't be exactly a major task to have it applied on Scam Accusation and Meta Section.

Do you think it's not required? Especially when you yourself say it's "Moderated less strictly", so will this not help?

Again what's to lose IF this happens? I mean when the "INTENTION" is to decrease scams, then does it really matters whether Ads are ALLOWED or not?

I see no benefit to removing ads from these sections. If anything removing ads would give people with paid signatures to not post there, which in turn will cause less people to visit these sections, which is not a desirable outcome.

Disabling signatures is a kind of moderation/restriction.

IMO, your motivations are transparent but I prefer to attack the suggestion and not the messenger.

[Joseph R. Cord]

We already have a section that has signature ads (actually all signatures) disabled. It is the serious discussion section. Anything is allowed there except advertisements and posts requesting a response from the administration.

Sections like meta and scam accusations are important and this is why they are moderated less strictly than the rest of the forum.

Although, I was not aware of this but anyway this is already mentioned above. So, I feel it shouldn't be exactly a major task to have it applied on Scam Accusation and Meta Section.

Do you think it's not required? Especially when you yourself say it's "Moderated less strictly", so will this not help?

Again what's to lose IF this happens? I mean when the "INTENTION" is to decrease scams, then does it really matters whether Ads are ALLOWED or not?

I see no benefit to removing ads from these sections. If anything removing ads would give people with paid signatures to not post there, which in turn will cause less people to visit these sections, which is not a desirable outcome.

Disabling signatures is a kind of moderation/restriction.

IMO, your motivations are transparent but I prefer to attack the suggestion and not the messenger.

Ok now I have a question for you. Do you want to make people post there? There are long list of sections on this forum, where people are "FREE" and should be posting to keep the forum going. So do you want "FORCE" people to post on these 2 sections, which are sensitive?

If you say that, No, it's better that people post and that even if is a "RANDOM" post on those section, just so that there is "MORE" activity on that forum then fine, I have no issue as that's your personal view. But from what I "UNDERSTOOD" was that those forums are "PURELY" to "IMPROVE" the forum, it's not about asking everyone to post, as that makes "NO DIFFERENCE".

I repeat it again for you, it's "NOT" possible for you or ANYONE to see "MY TRUST ZONE" unless you specifically "VISIT" my profile. So how exactly would I be creating it to "SHOW" that? The topic is "ENTIRELY" about signatures.
 

[o_e_l_e_o]

In your case, it takes a not insignificant amount of time to find all the different sources you plagiarized from, take screenshots of your plagiarized whitepaper and match it to screenshots of the source material, crop and upload all these screenshots to an image hosting site, and format a post with all these screenshots linked. Suggesting that people are making Scam Accusation posts as a way of displaying their signature is utter nonsense - if I was trying to meet a posting requirement for a signature campaign, I could easily make 5 or more reasonable posts in the time it takes to make 1 scam ICO thread.


Is anyone else reading these random quotation marks as someone saying something really sarcastic and making air quotes while they do it? Makes it really hard to take anything he says seriously.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

What a sensible individual will do is to make use of either the search option on the forum or make use of google. This issue regarding signature blocking have been discussed numerous times to the extent both the forum and some skillful members of the community have provided us with some solutions:

Forum solution: [Guide]: How to disable signatures without using scripts
Other solution:

[Userscript] Bitcointalk Post Filter thread was posted= January 28, 2019
Browser Addon That Helps You Ignore Spammy Comments. Thread posted= January 16, 2019
Signature Adblock Script [0.5.0] thread was posted = March 26, 2015

[Quickseller]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127728.msg50443192#msg50443192

I don’t necessarily want more people posting there but I do want people to read those sections on a regular basis. If this is what it takes to achieve this goal then I am okay with more people posting.