Limit signature campaigns

[tranthidung]

Only the true bitcoin lovers will stay here.

Not only true bitcoin lovers, but also true forum lovers, includes true altcoin lovers, will stay here. Why true forum users have to leave the forum to find somewhere else? Bitcointalk.org is the biggest and most reliable forum in crypto. I have not seen other crypto forums that have multiple layers (Trust Flags, community-led spam-buster clubs, community-member-built plagiabot, scam-fighers, and more) of protections that are helpful tools to eliminate/ reduce scammers and scam projects.

[Welsh]

Did it occur to you that then people will focus on reporting?
Some will create accounts for making 1-5 posts that are reported, yay.
Many will report posts that maybe don't need to be reported.
It'll just create another problem imho.

Users won't report posts intentionally that they think are wrong reports, because it requires good reports to get a badge. Therefore, it would be counterproductive for them to report any old post. However, due to the amount of users reporting that will likely result in more bad reports, but that's a small trade off considering there should be a lot more good reports than bad.

[The-One-Above-All]

Let's recap so far.

1. Initial GOOD suggestion - Let's remove SIGs.

A temporary signature removal will give us valuable data. Hence why I suggested a month. I have no issue with extending that amount of time to forever.

2.  Bitcoin earning sig wearers shout  = Yes let's remove sigs BUT NOT OUR sigs (because we control the bitcoin paying sigs)

It is no secret that users who are getting paid in worthless tokens would have even less incentive to post better quality replies. That's just how it is.

I have reported scores of users and the top offenders mostly in altcoin campaigns. Some are in low-paying BTC campaigns as well.

Well, that is one way to look at it.

If you NEED financial incentive to post good replies then bitcointalk can do without you. If success of this trustless decentralized movement is not reward enough and incentive enough then goodbye.

There are several issues with this point of view.

1. Highly paid bitcoin signatures/campaigns seem to be the cause of a LOT of the corruption at the higher levels, and  DOUBLE STANDARDS are the most divisive and destructive negatives that seem to be the root cause of the disagreements with system controllers. (who (co)incidentally have the LIONS SHARE of those bitcoin paying campaigns. This greatly spoils the environment for all. The hostility and the sense of injustice. Neither are nice and put some people off. The DESIRE to remain in those sig sports or get into them allows merit and trust to become the gamed carrot and stick of group think and crushing of free speech ( the worst part of it all)

2. Highly paid sigs have MORE incentive to post needless FILLER posts to meet their MAX payment each month.If people view their bounty tokens as "worthless tokens" then why do they even bother posting at all and should have FAR less incentive to post at all. Why post needless filler crap for free? They (higher paid sigs) also have MORE incentive to post false, incorrect and misleading information to ensure they are the ones that stay in those highly paid sigs.  Those sigs DON'T seem to expire like the alt coin low value trash as you say. Once you worm yourself into one of these highly paid sig campaigns then you seem to be in it for months or YEARS on end. Of course the motivation to stay there will make you far LESS objective with regard how the board operates and stifles FAIR COMPETITION for those tiny tiny tiny % of sig spots.  Hence why they are HIGHLY damaging and corrupting. They must be deleted with ALL of the other signatures. I would say damage done from those wearing those highly paid  sigs is probably far more significant for the forum going forward than a sub board (alts) that is ALREADY pretty much destroyed,  but contained to a large degree so broadly speaking bitcoin is left alone.

Also clearing ONLY the "trash token bounty" sigs will do nothing. The projects will simply respawn with bunches of their own private post for shit tokens campaigns with fake conversation crap so there you are just kicking the can down the road. Alt board needs more than sig bans it needs a total rethink. The old noob jail was the ONLY sensible way forward. You make posting on the senior alt board a privilege that is revoked the moment you start spamming and fake conversation garbage. So you will need to be very sensible else back to noob jail and the long haul back. Bitcoin discussion is not so bad because you can't start a ton of fake conversations about alt projects there.

3, There is 3 clear types of shit posted that creates a sub-optimal forum performance.

a/ spam/filler junk/ parroting/ fake discussions etc etc  this is dilution and obfuscation of valuable posts. Average people can  filter it IF they want to put in the time.

b/ specious semi well presented faux rebuttals and faux support. THESE ARE WORSE and can dupe average to low minds into believing fake and incorrect garbage. There should be NO incentive for these specious arguments to be put forward. All financial motivation for them in terms of direct board generated revenue must be crushed where possible.

c/ Raging wars based on personal gains and grievance the largest MOTIVATION For which is always MONEY/FINANCIAL on this type of forum (excluding politics board etc). Wars and animosity will be a large and negative issue where people perceive UNFAIR reward and punishment in comparison to others. There must be transparent fair rules that ensure all are treated equally. Else people waste their time on personal grievances over contributing to pushing this movement forward. All the main arguments seem to be derived in reputation from a persons right to paid2post or rev streams got terminated. Some others though will fight merely on behalf of others or for the introduction of fairer systems that will be hugely net positive going forward for the entire movement and to guarantee free unfettered speech continues here.


4. The final but most important point though is this.

a/ you can delete the highly paid btc sig campaigns and lose a handful of the most corrupt and observably dirty individuals whose double standards seems to be creating most of the real wars here and NOT LOSE MUCH TRAFFIC AT ALL.  The boards revenue would be unaffected with their campaign adds being displayed directly by the forum not DT's creaming off those spots. Perhaps the board will MAKE MORE MONEY?? the board will have gained back it's free speech ( or in other words financial gain and membership to highly paid sig campaigns will not be dominating and influencing what you chose to post here)  and be less of an echo chamber. You will win win there.


b/ You can delete everyones sigs "shit tokens etc" and watch the traffic crushed by a HUGE degree, and lose a lot of the boards revenue due to long term huge traffic loss - board loses lots of money  and does not even really do anything except push the icos and projects to just pay for fake discussions etc which will just keep the general threads there low value. Perhaps open a SENIOR alt board which is sig free but has no other limits.

c/  You can delete both ?

Really the ONLY board damaged HUGELY that is worth worrying about in terms of success of this movement is the ALT boards. Bitcoin discussion is not TOO bad. It is still largely functional.

For the movements sake it is a tough call to kick sigs from the alt board. A lot of interest in decentralized trustless projects relies on them telling their pals you can make some quick bucks here pumping "shit coins" although awareness and involvement from that source will generate a certain % of successes and real enthusiasts regardless of financial net gain.

It's a tough call from the boards point of view. Especially as looking at the last ledger the board makes quite a bit on the traffic and adds.

WHATEVER !!! YOU WANT REAL ENTHUSIASTS FOR THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT AT THE TOP MAKING SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES OR INFLUENCING THEM. NOT THOSE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN SELFISH GAIN ONLY.

Decisions made in positions of power must be for the good of the movement not for the good of themselves first or perhaps ONLY.




TL: DR -  ( seriously?)

Remove Highly paid btc sigs ONLY (those should now be reserved for mods and direct forum advertisement)
 everyone else can sig spam on alt board with the rest of them for shit tokens and ensure that board only is low quality. (can make a sig free altcoin senior board)

- pros

remove the primary incentive for corruption, double standards ,  wars,  group think and echo chambers. Can provide funding for perhaps a couple of more full time mods that are fully accountable for their actions. Will help ensure that "ideas" voiced in meta (influencing system wide changes ) are the voices of those that are REAL ENTHUSIASTS not self serving scoundrels. Still attract all the traffic from the high volume of users on the alts boards, those posting on other boards can do it without sigs.

- cons

NONE

Remove tokens and crappy bitcoin paid sigs ONLY

Pros - will increase the concentration of valuable posters that are real enthusiasts, at least for now. alt coin boards will improve.

Cons - you will lose all of the benefits of removing the highly paid bitcoin sigs brings (see above lots of benefits)., you will lose huge volume and reduce revenue for the funding of the forum, perhaps even aid competition of other boards rising up.


Putting too much emphasis on reporting and snitching is not healthy at all.


Remove both = you do the math.

Whatever let's remove sigs from meta and rep asap.

[rosezionjohn]

I heard they keep saying that the forum has enough money and without traffic from the spammers the forum will be better off. Personally I think forum will lose most of it's traffic and people will move on to something else. Only the true bitcoin lovers will stay here.

This forum exploded because many people saw an opportunity to earn. I know of five other forums that will definitely welcome btc and more altcoin signature campaigns. Some high-ranking users here are well-off (maybe) and don't really need the added income but others will move or be more active in other forums.   


I see some user here suggesting the removal of signature but still proudly wearing one.   

[malevolent]

I mean it's no secret that people shitpost for sig campaigns. I think if we put a cap on their earnings, for example, once you've earned $5, you need to stop posting.

Also, impose bans on account sales on Bitcointalk, so people don't buy accounts to bypass restrictions on Newbie users that are there for a freaking reason

I mean, if you can buy higher ranked accounts, well that kinda defeats the point of having ranking systems now doesn't it?

Sorry, I'm gonna keep this brief. I know there's been plenty of talking on this issue already.

Newbies can already bypass many restrictions by buying Copper membership:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=credit;promote

Account sales are unlikely to be banned because people will still sell them off-site. How do you prevent that?

I see some user here suggesting the removal of signature but still proudly wearing one.   

They may believe that signatures in aggregate have a harmful influence on the quality of discourse on the forum, without thinking of themselves as a spammer (and without being one).

[TheRealAwesome31312]

I see some user here suggesting the removal of signature but still proudly wearing one.   

What I've learned from making this post is that a lot of people who are actually part of sig campaigns don't like the impact they've had on the community en masse. I've participated in a few sig campaigns myself. There's a small minority of sig campaign posters that aren't spammers.

[philipma1957]

How hard is it to shut the options down for a month.  Maybe it is too hard to do that (I doubt that)

Now even if done it does not stop a spam post with a link  I have reported many of them.

We may find  that spam posts with links go up 10 fold for the signature ban month.  
Thus we say okay lets  go back to signatures as it is the lessor of 2 evils.
As it is quite possible that paid signatures reduce the spam posts with an outside link.

Your theory makes some sense if we're talking about throwaway accounts. However, since a lot of members want to keep their "rank privileges" I'm not so sure that they'll resort to link spam, especially if it results in a ban.

Spam is one thing but link spam is another. The latter should be more bannable and that would disincentivize users from going too crazily on the off-period. Especially if they have a chance of returning to signature campaigns.

I still say it's worth a shot, that we should try the experiment. Even a week or two would be fine. After all, with no incentive to post, we won't get horrible replies to useless threads.

How about jan 1 to Jan 15th?

No avatar
no shit under the avatar
no signature.

do some stats and see how much traffic is lost.  see how many do shit spam links.



we could have a 2 week vacation for jan 1 to jan 15 and one for  july 1 to july 15.

[Natalim]

I see some user here suggesting the removal of signature but still proudly wearing one.   

What I've learned from making this post is that a lot of people who are actually part of sig campaigns don't like the impact they've had on the community en masse. I've participated in a few sig campaigns myself. There's a small minority of sig campaign posters that aren't spammers.

Most of the members who replied in this thread are wearing signature, so it's expected that they will not favor on limiting signature campaign .
Even when I was a low rank member, I already participated in signature and honestly that makes me active in this forum.

[Welsh]

Most of the members who replied in this thread are wearing signature, so it's expected that they will not favor on limiting signature campaign .
Even when I was a low rank member, I already participated in signature and honestly that makes me active in this forum.

Although, it would be a shame to ban something which in itself is fine, and the only reason its become a problem is because users are abusing it. However, if it were to get limited/banned then I probably wouldn't have an argument, because of the issues its currently causing the forum. There would be a whole load of users who would feel hard done by due to it being a minority, but maybe we should be looking at the campaign managers who are managing the participants. 

[Coyster]

After all, with no incentive to post, we won't get horrible replies to useless threads.

I do not think this is true in any way, there are a whole lot of users who are still newbies and a lot(member to legendary rank) who are not on a signature, yet they come up with "useless" and low quality thread.

Signature isn't entirely the problem, even if it may contribute to it to an extent, but with the example above it's clear it's not wholly the cause of spam.
It's in the nature of humans to speak on issues they have paltry knowledge on.

[actmyname]

I do not think this is true in any way, there are a whole lot of users who are still newbies and a lot(member to legendary rank) who are not on a signature, yet they come up with "useless" and low quality thread.

Argument over semantics...

I expect spam to decline by at least 90%. 10% of sig spammers will stay. Being forced to post in return for money, that's far more appealing than just posting because of an inflated ego and/or trolling.

[Zero1One0]

The signature campaign and bounties are not the same as it was compared to 2017 ICO boom.

Signature campaigns may die a natural death and spam may also die with it.

Just let nature take its course.

[Baronets]

The use of signature space is a reward for posters who contribute to a forum. I don't spend much time in forums that don't allow links in signatures. I think it would be helpful to make members aware that the content of their signature affects their reputation. If you promote scamming projects, then people will start to think of you as a scammer, even if it isn't true.

[hd49728]

The use of signature space is a reward for posters who contribute to a forum. I don't spend much time in forums that don't allow links in signatures. I think it would be helpful to make members aware that the content of their signature affects their reputation. If you promote scamming projects, then people will start to think of you as a scammer, even if it isn't true.

If the forum born without BB-coded signatures. Years ago, the forum born as the place for bitcoin discussion and developments. It will be fine if it return to its original version, non-signature forum. Then all ranks of accounts can be able to wear avatars, just disable signatures.

[noormcs5]

The use of signature space is a reward for posters who contribute to a forum. I don't spend much time in forums that don't allow links in signatures. I think it would be helpful to make members aware that the content of their signature affects their reputation. If you promote scamming projects, then people will start to think of you as a scammer, even if it isn't true.

If the forum born without BB-coded signatures. Years ago, the forum born as the place for bitcoin discussion and developments. It will be fine if it return to its original version, non-signature forum. Then all ranks of accounts can be able to wear avatars, just disable signatures.

There has been a great debate going on since years whether the forum should be Signature free or not. You can give endless arguments in favor or against it but if you ask me, i will like to have signatures on the forum. Not because that posters get some money for posting, but for the companies who knows that this is the biggest platform and their willingness to promote their business through this platform.

[Welsh]

The signature campaign and bounties are not the same as it was compared to 2017 ICO boom.

Signature campaigns may die a natural death and spam may also die with it.

Just let nature take its course.

They're still a big part of the forum, especially within the altcoin section. Bounties are crazy, and there's new ones popping up every hour. Bitcoin signature campaigns are dying out slowly probably due to the fact that Bitcoins price is fluctuating so much, and its considered more valuable. Now that ICO's know that they can offer their coin shares instead of Bitcoin which might very well never amount to anything they are opting for that approach. Being a Bitcoin forum I'd like to think these campaigns should be required to pay in Bitcoin or at least pay a fee to the forum in Bitcoin like already mentioned.

[hd49728]

There has been a great debate going on since years whether the forum should be Signature free or not. You can give endless arguments in favor or against it but if you ask me, i will like to have signatures on the forum. Not because that posters get some money for posting, but for the companies who knows that this is the biggest platform and their willingness to promote their business through this platform.

Signature itself does not do anything wrong or annoying. Only people who abuse the forum by wearing signature and spam around, with very low-quality, low-content posts are issues, not signature. Turn off all signature might have negative effects on forum traffic, and this is one of main reasons why signature will be here. There is nothing wrong or annoying if someone makes high quality, contentful posts with signature behind their post.

[Welsh]

Signature itself does not do anything wrong or annoying. Only people who abuse the forum by wearing signature and spam around, with very low-quality, low-content posts are issues, not signature. Turn off all signature might have negative effects on forum traffic, and this is one of main reasons why signature will be here. There is nothing wrong or annoying if someone makes high quality, contentful posts with signature behind their post.

I believe theymos has stated before that it isn't traffic he's worried about when concerning signatures, and has even hinted that in the future they might even be removed. If my memory serves me correctly what he did say was it would be a shame to sort of remove a ecosystem within the forum. Although, I haven't got the links/quotes on me now I can see if I can find them later on when I have a little more time on my hands.

[eternalgloom]

@welsh:

Was this the post? Probably not, but he did also state in this one that removing them would be possible.

It's too early to get a clear picture, but my thoughts so far:

First, most people complaining about merit are constantly posting garbage, and should not rank-up. The forum is not a welfare system; you don't run through a few hoops and then get paid for doing something that nobody actually wants. I like that good forum members can make money, especially when said forum members are in poorer countries and this is a major opportunity for them. I very much do not want to destroy the sig-ad/airdrop/bounty "industry". But I am not going to tolerate people posting garbage upon garbage. If the merit system completely fails and I can't think of anything else to replace it, then my next step will probably be to completely remove all ways for forum users to make money from posting (eg. removing signatures entirely).

--snip--

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350 (topic) || https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.msg29540717#msg29540717 (Exact reply)

Seems like it was given as an option for when the merit system fails. Has it failed? What's everyone's opinion on that?

[hd49728]

I digged and made this thread, which summarises process from which theymos asked for ideas from communites, came to original solutions (merit system & new rank requirements); to more restrictive improvements (old-era Junior Members demotion); and reminders on post-quality and potential conflict of interests between the forum, good users, and spammers.
Since 2018, what did you contribute to prevent signature ads removed globally?
Still not find the part mentioned about forum traffic.