[Proposal] Tackling the spam

[actmyname]

What happens if those rules are demanded by the users and not by the admins (e.g., me)? No one twists one's arm to this proposal and thus, freedom of choice remains. I want to believe that this community operates more democratically rather than anarchically.

Find a way to ferry those targeted users in your proposal into the port of rulebreakers.

Take for example #1 and its extension:

No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads.

Such posts as "SELL SELL SELL", "I agree", "+1", "Support", "Watching", "Interesting", "LOL", "SCAM", "LEGIT", "FAKE", other one word posts, posts consisting mostly of swearing, quote pyramids, useless introduction threads, threads about a topic already recently discussed in several other threads.

If you have enforcement against users that are spammers, should there be enforcement against users that create spammers?
Or users that incentivize spam (e.g. rule 15)?

After all...

Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your [altcoin] threads. [...] Similar threads are already restricted to Games and Rounds in the non-altcoin sections

Well, that's on a thread-by-thread or post-by-post basis, whereas signature campaigns impact the entire forum and multiple posts at once. Too much for moderators to handle there: they can't possibly have that responsibility or else we've crossed the line. Unless another campaign gets to YoBit levels of spam, I doubt you'll see much restriction against signature campaigns (even if they are run by Newbies, red-trusted, no-escrow, shady platforms).

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't think that main cause (or even one of the main ones) of low quality posts is due sig campaigners maintaining several alts but because of simple reason: they are getting paid for those shitposts anyway so why would they change?

As a counterpoint to your argument, I'd say that we've seen lots of evidence of members with alt accounts abusing bounties and signature campaigns, and many of those members have been tagged by me or some other DT member(s).  I didn't make that assertion with nothing to back it, and you've been on the forum long enough to have seen people getting busted for enrolling one or more alt accounts in a campaign/bounty.

And even if that wasn't the case, why not try to do a good job so that your chances of getting accepted into another campaign or bounty are higher?  If you're in a 3rd world country and can make more money participating in a sig campaign than you could with a full-time job in your area, don't you think you should put in some effort?  I don't think that's an outrageously high standard.

Unless another campaign gets to YoBit levels of spam, I doubt you'll see much restriction against signature campaigns (even if they are run by Newbies, red-trusted, no-escrow, shady platforms).

Yep, you're right about that--and I think the only problem with Yobit's last campaign was that they seemingly didn't have a cap on how many members they'd allow in, and the result was that there were well over 100 (if I recall correctly) members with varying post quality all trying to make the maximum number of posts per day, which also was a lot.  There isn't likely to be a campaign like that again....I hope.