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

[libert19]

I think you missed Lucius' sarcasm

I think Lucius might have missed his sarcasm.  

I didn't miss anything, because OP and his threads in Meta have been 99% trolling for years. Unfortunately, most of us (including me) decide to play his game.

Just for the record, I don't troll.

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

I only waited 2 years and got the middle finger from the admin. However, I think that the OP has a chance to become a merit source, I mean with regard to some of the candidates who got that position in the last approval.

Thanks for good wishes.

[tbct_mt2]

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.

Signature campaign and the industry are privileges for forum members, it's not a rights and will never be a rights. theymos or Cyrus can disable this signature campaign industry anytime.

If years ago, the forum began and was well without signature campaigns, it will be well without it. Clearly there will be effects like less traffics, less posts but think about it this way. Does the forum make any money from people posts or traffic?

After theymos removed advertisement banners years ago, forum does not generate money from anything.

If theymos or Cyrus or both of them still let the signature campaign industry works here, it's because they want to give people chances but I hope that people won't take it for granted. Because let's emphasize again, it's not a rights!

[Mia Chloe]

Signature campaign and the industry are privileges for forum members, it's not a rights and will never be a rights. theymos or Cyrus can disable this signature campaign industry anytime.
If years ago, the forum began and was well without signature campaigns, it will be well without it. Clearly there will be effects like less traffics, less posts but think about it this way. Does the forum make any money from people posts or traffic?

Weather people here do accept it or not signatures actually contribute to the total traffic that comes to the forum and removing them totally is actually gonna affect that gross traffic. if people here genuinely don't want to see signature campaigns anymore then they should probably start by not wearing any.

The admins removed banners for two major reasons. first is because they already have enough to handle forum expenses and second it increases the value of the forum indirectly.

[TypoTonic]

Maybe, I would be willing to support removing signatures from all Bitcoin, Meta and Altcoins sections and only showing them in gambling, services sections etc.

I honestly thought this was the best idea too, but I just realized something while re-reading it now -- if signatures are removed from those sections, then only gambling posts will be rewarded! Signature campaigns are supposed to be "a way to reward users for quality contributions", but this would take away the incentive from quality posters who mainly participate in the "core" boards.

-snip- 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.)

At the very least, he hasn't ruled out the possibility of banning it in the future:

Honestly, I find signature advertisements distasteful, and it is not impossible that I will someday ban the practice. However, it's obviously an important part of the forum ecosystem today.

[LoyceV]

The admins removed banners for two major reasons. first is because they already have enough to handle forum expenses and second it increases the value of the forum indirectly.

There were not two but three main reasons, and "increasing the value of the forum" wasn't one of them. If you're not sure about something, either look it up or don't post it.

First off I don't remember quoting you

How is that relevant?

if you don't understand ask questions

Did I hit a nerve?

it's not my problem if you don't in literal sense understand what increasing the value of the forum means.

Of course I know what it means, it just wasn't among the reasons.

[OgNasty]

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.

Signature campaign and the industry are privileges for forum members, it's not a rights and will never be a rights. theymos or Cyrus can disable this signature campaign industry anytime.

If years ago, the forum began and was well without signature campaigns, it will be well without it. Clearly there will be effects like less traffics, less posts but think about it this way. Does the forum make any money from people posts or traffic?

After theymos removed advertisement banners years ago, forum does not generate money from anything.

If theymos or Cyrus or both of them still let the signature campaign industry works here, it's because they want to give people chances but I hope that people won't take it for granted. Because let's emphasize again, it's not a rights!

I disagree that the forum would do well today without signature campaigns.  Once upon a time there was a real economy here.  People supported creators and talented individuals came here to create great products.  Now it isn't so much like that.  Creators mostly slap together not very well thought out goods at massive markups purely for profit and then bash anyone they see as competition in the hopes it will get them sales.  Without signature campaigns, there would be no money flowing into anything here at all.  The few creators still making goods (I haven't released a new product since 2018) wouldn't be able to sell anything and most of the remaining individuals bringing value here would likely leave.  It would be an echo chamber that would be completely useless for advancing Bitcoin use cases or discussion.  Although that does appear to be the goal at times.  Just look at how empty blocks are.  This isn't by accident.

[Mia Chloe]

There were not two but three main reasons, and "increasing the value of the forum" wasn't one of them. If you're not sure about something, either look it up or don't post it.

First off I don't remember quoting you and secondly if you don't understand ask questions and don't say what you don't know you probably already read it out well and yes I meant what I meant it's not my problem if you don't in literal sense understand what increasing the value of the forum means.

~snip

Exactly. Fact is they know the truth but just choose to act naïve regardless. Removing banners from the forum and banning signatures are very different and far apart l.

[EarnOnVictor]

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.

You are making sense even as you want a balance, and the question you raised is sensible and direct enough for those who cares to weigh it or answer. For me, there's no perfect system and it will not start on Bitcointalk. The problem is never the Signature Campaign, as it is the one still holding this forum this big this far. What this current forum system is also doing is good enough. The only plausible solution has been raised many times, even by CMs that, anyone caught spamming should be reported immediately. This is the responsibility of everyone, which I think, is how we contribute our quota as well. Mods and CMs cannot do it alone.

[libert19]

The only plausible solution has been raised many times, even by CMs that, anyone caught spamming should be reported immediately. This is the responsibility of everyone, which I think, is how we contribute our quota as well. Mods and CMs cannot do it alone.

I mean mods don't even care about obvious signature spam as this.

[nutildah]

I have one final thing to say in this thread: my views on the forum have shifted since I disabled signatures and avatars on my profile, about a year ago. Without knowing:

- what service/product the user is promoting in their sig space
- who their campaign manager is
- who the other members of the campaign are,

I see posts individually, for what they actually are -- not laden with association bias. I no longer concern myself with "what would so and so think if I said this about their campaign member/manager". Its kind of freeing. I suggest you guys try it. In the Look and Layout Preferences:

Wait... what I did miss now? Established member? Very established. 10 posts? Posted. What else there is? Or do you mean, I should remove snips and post proper quotes!?

C'mon man. You didn't really try. Your application reads like you're trolling yourself. If you're serious, delete your old application, try again and this time be serious about it.

[Mia Chloe]

Did I hit a nerve?

Of course I know what it means, it just wasn't among the reasons.

It's gonna take alot more than that to  probably piss me off. If you did understand what I was saying bold and clear it means you knew it was right and partly indirect , then why did you choose to make it sound like I don't know exactly what I'm saying? There was no need honestly. All I said was fact and I'll requote anywhere.

Theymos mustn't write it out boldly for you to mark it clear as a reason it's more like common sense. If banners were on this forum you probably won't be around because of low quality just like you are not on altcoins talks.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I’d still post regularly if signature campaigns were banned. I just really enjoy the forum, I love Bitcoin, it has made my life. I love the community too, I have made some lifelong friends here so simply cutting pay wouldn’t change anything for ie, personally.

I have to agree with the OP though. There would definitely be a traffic drop off if signature campaigns were banned. I am not here to judge anybody but I think for some, their whole purpose of being here is payment. This is a Bitcoin forum, some people have never even posted about Bitcoin which is very telling indeed.

 

[PrivacyG]

The amount of spam and spammers grew so much that any measure would put a TON of work on the back of theymos and the rest of the Staff.  Imagine this.  A simple rule, such as spammers all of a sudden getting the ban hammer and any alternative account too.  You will have dozens, hundreds of Topics accusing theymos of being a dictator, people calling for an unban for wrongfully being accused of being spammers et cetera.  And we already have a lot of topics where theymos is being called out and demanded answers for what ever people felt he did wrong.

I do not know if there is a solution with no significant consequences.  I do not know if a signature campaign ban and its consequences would not significantly affect theymos or the rest of the Staff considering the traffic would get a hard hit too.  Punishing everyone for the people who come around here to spam and burst post for campaign quotas is not the solution in my opinion too, like others wrote before me.

I remember there was another Topic a while ago where I saw some really respectable Members say they would visit Bitcoin Talk less if they were not paid through a signature campaign.  And I get why.  The top Members of this Forum are putting a LOT of effort into keeping their level of recognition above the rest and the campaigns are an incentive to continue doing it.  There is a lot of time spent, a lot of effort that they would happily do maybe even with out being paid but if they do get paid, it motivates them and allows them to spend more time doing the same thing they like.  Other wise, they would probably rather spend the same amount of time doing other things while still earning some money and then there would be less time for Bitcoin Talk so less activity.  Does it make sense?

I do not consider my self to be of any recognition at all particularly as I do think my quality has dropped significantly over the years but if I personally were to visit Bitcoin Talk ONLY when I had enough free time to, I would also visit it less often and I already consider my self visiting it rarely enough these days.  And I do admit a lack of payments would make me look for other ways to earn and this in consequence reduces my activity here.

But as I said before, being part of a signature campaign does not automatically make you a spammer.  You KNOW when you are writing only for the Post count, you KNOW when you are not doing the right things, you KNOW when you are repeating your self over and over again only to get the payment.  My point being that being very repetitive and spamming is a choice!

Signature campaigns did both good and bad for our community.  Bad because we have a lot more spam and alternative accounts than we would have if they did not exist but a lot of good when you think about all the users learning by being incentivized.  You see a lot of Newbies clearly writing Topics asking for 'guidance' in a rush of growing their account quicker but you also see actual respectable Members who used to be new, were interested in signature campaign earnings and did not know much when they started but they ended up becoming something.

If there was a way to remove spam with out making the Staff hate their lives and position, I would 100 percent support it.  If there was a way spammers could not get accepted by signature campaign managers, I would 100 percent support it.

But if you remove signature campaigns, do you really solve these problems?  The most annoying spammers I have seen are people who have never even reached the minimum requirements of participating in a campaign or if they did, they never had any interest in joining one.  So you are left with less reputable people being around or reputable people being around less often, spammers still spamming, Staff having to do a lot more work, theymos getting less traffic, is it worth it or would it possibly turn Bitcoin Talk into a worse place?

I would start by advising Staff to start cleaning up Topics.  As in.  It happens a lot that I see a Topic such as 'Is Bitcoin centralized?' where at least 10 percent of the replies are the definition of Bitcoin or some thing that is clearly not a real answer to the Topic that was started.  I would get these out as they clearly do not even offer any useful resource or opinion to the subject discussed.  If these people got their posts removed, it would become WAY harder to reach post counts so less people will be motivated to run 10 spamming alternative accounts for campaigns considering it would take a lot more time to try and reach the minimum count, and in consequence managers will kick out those not being able to hit the quota and even select people based on how many posts they had deleted by Staff.

I would also maybe impose a time out where if you get a particular amount of replies or Topics deleted by Staff, you would not be able to post at all for an amount of hours or days.

I would probably add a new statistic to Member Profiles that shows how many posts you got deleted by Staff in the last 30, 60 or 90 days.  That would say a lot about the behavior of an user.

Most of the spam is clear to the eye in my opinion and in the opinion of many others too.  You open up a Topic and you already see it!  And that can be deleted and I do not think anyone would cry about it.  In fact.  I believe it would clean up the Forum a lot and solve multiple issues at once!

[AVE5]

Obviously, there'd be less traffic when there are no campaigns because there'd be no incentive to post but on the flip side, threads become more educative instead of repetitive and the responses will be more as a result of knowing what to input and not because they are trying to meet up a quota. I think this is the same thing Op mentioned in his opening body...still, in all honesty, should signature campaigns get the pause button, I would really miss it.

Signature campaign with its incentives is certainly the criteria that has  boosted the forum, spreading it across boundaries and makes the forum more like a productive platform where people comes to build carriers and make money instead being found as educative platform.
Many user's had also questioned that of not for the incentive, which way again will the forum be profitable? I think these are user's who're not even buying bitcoin or investing in crypto with their own money because if they do, the discussions and ideals shares on the discussion process should be worthy enough than the incentives.
It has just become unfortunate that many are spamming with shit posting just to meet up the signature campaign's post quota.
I've come to observe that even the immobility of merits has kept obstructions from new accounts being flooding as before. If the same immobility of campaigns happens, I bet even those user's who've been here for long and had gained experiences and not in the campaigns will reduce interests in posting which definitely will cause traffic to the forum.

[Betwrong]

Another idea: instead of removing the signature campaign, why not declare the forum a historical archive and remove open registration?

This comes to mind:

Limiting newbie participation is very harmful for a community. Newbie jail will never return: I consider the newbie-jail period to have been extremely damaging to the forum. When barriers to participation are too high, then the best people often just won't go to the trouble of joining, and the people who are willing to jump through the hoops are often people who aren't good for the community: people with nothing better to do, scammers, get-rick-quickers, etc. Having a permanent newbie jail policy would improve things a lot in the short-term, but would end up being a fatal poison to the community.

I agree with this. Old members can be good, but we all change with time. If we want our forum to stay alive, we need new blood, no matter how attractive the idea of sticking with old members may seem.

[PrivacyG]

No more new users would kill this Forum.  Sooner or later, old users will go.  We already lost a few.  And as much as I liked to browse Bitcoin Talk before actually registering my self on here, I would probably not like a community where only a few select people can speak their mind.  It would be fun to browse once or twice an year or particularly for updates on vulnerabilities, new proposals et cetera but other than that, I see no point in continuing to visit it.  Hell.  I would feel bad knowing newer Bitcoin enthusiasts are not going to have the privilege I do of being able to write on the original Bitcoin Forum.

I actually believe this Forum has done a GREAT amount of good to so many people who were Brand New and asked for help.  There are a lot of good discussions around here, you only have to actually care about your experience here.  You can also make it a signature campaign payment only experience where your only purpose is writing to get paid, but I suppose over 90 percent of Altcoin Talks users are there particularly for that purpose and it is evident.  At some point in time I did want to contribute to discussions over there, particularly after the Mixer ban here.  But it looks like a ghost town to me.

[uchegod-21]

One thing I love about this forum is how there are discussions base on opinions from people of different countries and backgrounds. Signature campaigns may indeed be an incentive for people/ users to flood this forum with both pure intentions and the money making mindset. However, one thing is certain, activities on the forum will reduce, and this diversity seen here may also be lost along with spams and shit posts. This indeed has both pros and cons.