Blanket ban on signature campaigns, what it'd yield? Let's discuss

[libert19]

Well, this thread died in a day. I can't believe this.

[Rikafip]

Well, this thread died in a day. I can't believe this.

Well, this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, and we all know what would happen with bitcointalk if a signature ban happened.

[internetional]

And in my opinion, this discussion is pointless, as the forum administration hasn't even discussed banning signatures (though I understand that this would lead to the forum's demise, as this communication format is already "technically" outdated and an "echo" of the past. How many "live" forums do you know of on the internet?).

I fully agree with this view. If the signature feature itself is not disabled, and only the campaigns are shut down, the only result will be that information about campaigns starts circulating outside the forum. Many signature campaign managers already have Telegram chats or other channels for engaging participants. And banning people from mentioning a cryptocurrency business in their signature would basically be censorship. No one is going to do that at such a large scale.

I'm glad the campaigns exist here. Thanks to them, the forum created by Satoshi Nakamoto remains alive even after many other forums have long since died. I really like the forum format, and I would hate to lose the last successful platform still functioning in that format.

[LTU_btc]

Again, do you really think signature campaigns generate spam? Campaign managers often impose strict quality standards on posts, so I consider this a myth, as most signature campaign participants will engage in constructive discussion.

On paper everything looks nice, but reality is a bit different. I don't think that these standards is high enough. Sometimes it's amazing to see for what bulshit people are getting paid I understand managers, they can't get enough quality posters, but they have to fill spots. Otherwise advertiser just will move to different campaign manager if they won't get enough visibility.
But I wish that things would be done better and quality standard would be higher. There is no need to be radical with decisions like banning signatures.
IMO, there is just not enough users who capable to post good stuff and fill all available spots.

Well, this thread died in a day. I can't believe this.

Not sure what you did expected.

[libert19]

Well, this thread died in a day. I can't believe this.

Well, this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, and we all know what would happen with bitcointalk if a signature ban happened.

I liked the word ad nauseam, first time I heard it. I am sorry you had to feel nausea.

...

...

I'm glad the campaigns exist here. Thanks to them, the forum created by Satoshi Nakamoto remains alive even after many other forums have long since died. I really like the forum format, and I would hate to lose the last successful platform still functioning in that format.

I actually like how signature space perfectly fits in here. Not sure what original purpose was in the beginning, but worked out well I guess.

Well, this thread died in a day. I can't believe this.

Not sure what you did expected.

I expected better, I am disappointed and I am gonna cry in corner now.

[nutildah]

I still think there's a middle ground between where we are now and a total ban on sig campaigns.

An ideal forum environment attracts, retains and rewards quality posters. Can we agree on this?

At the moment, the forum rewards multi-accounting shitposters the most -- people who aren't interacting here in good faith. Their posts aren't written to be read but rather house SEO impressions for casinos. This is most evident in the Gambling section which now forever archives hundreds of thousands of low or zero value posts.

Because bad faith participants tend to run up a lot of posts across multiple accounts, the number of bad faith posts overwhelms the number of good faith posts in sections frequented by sig campaigners. This renders them unreadable for most people who don't already know the score with sig campaigns.

I cannot see this being beneficial to anyone outside of the posters, campaign managers and casinos, which together account for a sizable portion the clear majority of current forum activity. I'm wondering how much influence is too much. At one point do we start trying to make the forum appealing to read for casual members and visitors again... people who actually want to discuss Bitcoin, or anything at all.

I'm going to come up with an actionable, transparent plan to make it less easy to get away with low-effort posting on a professional scale and will post it in Meta for review.

[LoyceV]

I still think there's a middle ground between where we are now and a total ban on sig campaigns.

It would be a good start to enforce the almost 10 years old Signature Campaign Guidelines, especially the part on "Running a campaign".

An ideal forum environment attracts, retains and rewards quality posters. Can we agree on this?

That sounds about right But it's very difficult nowadays when most people prefer to use social media where algorithms decide what they get to read.

I'm going to come up with an actionable, transparent plan to make it less easy to get away with low-effort posting

Does your plan include just banning them?

[Lucius]

~snip~

Well, this thread died in a day. I can't believe this.

Not sure what you did expected.

I expected better, I am disappointed and I am gonna cry in corner now.

There's no point in crying in the corner when every new day is a new challenge - considering that you're inspired by various ideas these days, why don't you open a new topic "Can I become a moderator?"

[libert19]

~snip~

Well, this thread died in a day. I can't believe this.

Not sure what you did expected.

I expected better, I am disappointed and I am gonna cry in corner now.

There's no point in crying in the corner when every new day is a new challenge - considering that you're inspired by various ideas these days, why don't you open a new topic "Can I become a moderator?"

My merit source application didn't get traction, so I am rather demotivated to create thread to become mod.

[LoyceV]

My merit source application didn't get traction

Mine took about 4 months to get approved, and many others waited a lot longer. You created a shitty topic:

Hi there,

I don't have any qualifications but I'd like to be a merit source. Thank you.

You can't seriously complain about not being approved after 10 days! Even your edited version still doesn't meet theymos' requirements.

why don't you open a new topic "Can I become a moderator?"

so I am rather demotivated to create thread to become mod.

I think you missed Lucius' sarcasm

[Rikafip]

I think you missed Lucius' sarcasm

I think Lucius might have missed his sarcasm.  

[jeremypwr]

You would have to be a total idiot to think theymos would ever ban signatures 
Start off by googling microeconomics or find yourself a nice, informative Youtube video to explain

[m2017]

Again, do you really think signature campaigns generate spam? Campaign managers often impose strict quality standards on posts, so I consider this a myth, as most signature campaign participants will engage in constructive discussion.

On paper everything looks nice, but reality is a bit different. I don't think that these standards is high enough. Sometimes it's amazing to see for what bulshit people are getting paid I understand managers, they can't get enough quality posters, but they have to fill spots. Otherwise advertiser just will move to different campaign manager if they won't get enough visibility.
But I wish that things would be done better and quality standard would be higher. There is no need to be radical with decisions like banning signatures.
IMO, there is just not enough users who capable to post good stuff and fill all available spots.

So, you think sig.campaigns generate spam (due to the lack of good posters)? Honestly, sometimes I, too, notice such stupid posts that I don't even want to read it.

Okay, fine. "We" can't ban sig.campaigns, because that would change the forum forever (and not for the better). Leaving them as they are would create dissatisfied people, like the OP. What's the solution to avoid banning sig.campaigns while still reducing spam? Considering the shortage of good posters.

Solution (at the discretion of campaign managers): reduce the number of posters in sig.campaigns by increasing the post payout (distributing the same budget) and the weekly post limit, while simultaneously raising the quality requirements for posts.

That is, as soon as posters stop receiving payment for low-quality content, they will be forced, willy-nilly, to start writing more constructive posts.

[Halab]

You would have to be a total idiot to think theymos would ever ban signatures 

This message is likely to not age very well .
Time is relative. Cleopatra is closer to the invention of the iPhone than to the construction of the first pyramids. But I wouldn’t bet a cent on the fact that Theymos will never ban signatures (or at least make drastic changes). Signature campaigns are surely closer to the end than to the beginning.
(This is just my opinion, not an inside information.)

[OgNasty]

Signature campaigns are obviously horrible for discussion, but I think they are good for the economics of this place. A lot of that money trickles down to creators of products and suppliers of services here. The slowing velocity of BTC on this forum is one of the reasons that top talent no longer migrates here.

[LTU_btc]

So, you think sig.campaigns generate spam (due to the lack of good posters)? Honestly, sometimes I, too, notice such stupid posts that I don't even want to read it.

Okay, fine. "We" can't ban sig.campaigns, because that would change the forum forever (and not for the better). Leaving them as they are would create dissatisfied people, like the OP. What's the solution to avoid banning sig.campaigns while still reducing spam? Considering the shortage of good posters.

Solution (at the discretion of campaign managers): reduce the number of posters in sig.campaigns by increasing the post payout (distributing the same budget) and the weekly post limit, while simultaneously raising the quality requirements for posts.

That is, as soon as posters stop receiving payment for low-quality content, they will be forced, willy-nilly, to start writing more constructive posts.

Yeah, it's my thoughts more or less. Less participants but higher payments, I think it would increase quality, though it would reduce visibility as you wouldn't ad banners in every topic.
Now requirements is way too low - you need to have high ranked account, earn few merits and be capable to make few fuen sentences in English. Signature campaigns should be privillege, not basic thing for everyone.

This message is likely to not age very well .
Time is relative. Cleopatra is closer to the invention of the iPhone than to the construction of the first pyramids. But I wouldn’t bet a cent on the fact that Theymos will never ban signatures (or at least make drastic changes). Signature campaigns are surely closer to the end than to the beginning.
(This is just my opinion, not an inside information.)

Yeah, I also wouldn't be so confident. If theymos already made radical decisions by stopping selling ad spot on Bitcointalk and cutting-off main source of income for Bitcointalk, then I don't see what would stop him from banning signature campaign.

[nutildah]

Signature campaigns are obviously horrible for discussion, but I think they are good for the economics of this place.

Well this is a discussion forum first and foremost, so...

The slowing velocity of BTC on this forum is one of the reasons that top talent no longer migrates here.

I disagree. Most of the truly smart/talented posters that have come here over the last couple years aren't in sig campaigns. They just enjoy discussing the technical details of Bitcoin. Imagine that.