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

[Betwrong]

~
I always think that fighting something by simply prohibiting it only results in something even worse and more difficult to control emerging.
~

That's basically it. I think, even those who want the ban on signature campaigns can agree with this. I myself am not against sig campaigns, I think they do a lot of good to the forum, but I were against them, I would still agree with your words. A place of liberty like Bitcointalk should keep bans to a minimum.

[PrivacyG]

I have been thinking through out this day about other things that can be done that do not involve actual Censorship as in any bans or restrictions on writing or wearing.

How about introducing Bitcoin Talk mega Topics.  All existing and new Topics created on overly discussed subjects such as Gold versus Bitcoin, Bitcoin centralization, will Bitcoin replace Fiat et cetera should be locked down and archived except one, preferably the largest one.  This solves multiple issues in one.  We will not have 100 Topics on the same subject every month, replies made in that mega Topic would not be counted for signature campaigns and it forces only real, productive discussion around Bitcoin Talk.

If the subject is not worth a 'mega Topic', it could be simply redirected to an older discussion on the same subject.  This already happens often as other Members redirect to a previously started one and the new Topic dies off.

It would also not make an average day hell for Staff and we could all even help out by reporting any newly started or older Topic we find on the overly discussed subjects so Staff could lock down and redirect people to the mega ones.  And instead of a time out for having a particular amount of posts deleted by Staff in a set amount of time, it could be a 24 hour time out if Staff archives more than a few Topics per week.  It forces people to use the Search function next time before starting a new Topic too and a time out is not harsh at all in my opinion.

Any thoughts?

-----

I opened up the 'Bitcoin Discussion' Board,

This Topic belongs to a '51% attack' mega Topic,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5587600.0

These Topics belongs to a 'Bitcoin versus Altcoins' mega Topic,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5528999.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5587735.0

This Topic belongs to a 'SpaceX' or 'Billionaire investors' mega Topic,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5583561.0

This Topic belongs to a 'Quantum Threat' mega Topic,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5587861.0

These Topics belong to a 'BIP-110' or 'Blockchain Spam' mega Topic,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5566258.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586638.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5587917.0

This Topic probably belongs to the Wall Observer,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5582391.0

This Topic could be moved to a possible mega Topic on the 'Wallet software' Board,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5587743.0

And that is only after a quick look over the first page and I probably missed a few!  In fact.  We already have some 'mega Topics'.  On Bitcoin Discussions, I see a puzzle Topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.0), a 'Bitcoin versus Fiat risk' Topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5583349.0), a 'Holding Bitcoin forever' Topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5575982.0) and a Topic about El Salvador (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5342087.0).

[libert19]

[Betwrong]

I think it will rather be the first one. Whether we like it or not, Bitcointalk is the only place on the entire internet where you can get paid for your posts. Yes, I think many thousands of users will abandon this place for good if signature campaigns were banned.  For those who don't want to read "signature spam" there's an option to ignore.

[libert19]

...

Whether we like it or not, Bitcointalk is the only place on the entire internet where you can get paid for your posts.

What's there to dislike about it?

For those who don't want to read "signature spam" there's an option to ignore.

Quotes make it look like, it is exagerrated and not true, which is untrue. Anyhow, is ignoring user(s) really a solution? Individually, maybe but for the forum?

[AirdropNexioX]

...

Whether we like it or not, Bitcointalk is the only place on the entire internet where you can get paid for your posts.

What's there to dislike about it?

For those who don't want to read "signature spam" there's an option to ignore.

Quotes make it look like, it is exagerrated and not true, which is untrue. Anyhow, is ignoring user(s) really a solution? Individually, maybe but for the forum?

However, I do not consider the ignore option to be an effective way to handle the problem with spam signatures. This tool can only help the user that uses it but will leave the rest of the community having to suffer from poor quality messages.

In case a thread contains mostly one-sentence replies, telling all other members of the community to ignore such users does not contribute to the improvement of the forum. It would be better to promote campaigns that value quality over quantity and moderate obvious spam on the forum.

The ignore list is a helpful individual tool but cannot be used to solve a global problem of the community.

[Charcol]

The points have been raised hither and thither on random threads, but I'd like to bring same in one thread.

Pros:

— No multi-accounting since there will be no incentive to do so. But, people may still have separate ones for: mobiles, desktop, etc.

— Less spam, since again there will no incentive to do so. Less because I am pretty sure, some may still shitpost for entertainment purposes.

— Stable/genuine distribution of merits since accounts possibly won't be pushed to rank up in local boards.

Spam may decrease but I don't think it will completely go away. Rather, some good posters who are known to the forum may also reduce their time on the forum. I have a better idea than that, which is that it would be more balanced if strict action were taken against weak campaigns and low-quality participants before banning campaigns. Especially those who continue to abuse merit as they wish just to participate in campaigns. If I could prove it to them, maybe spam would decrease. I know that these are being fought against constantly.

[Betwrong]

...

Whether we like it or not, Bitcointalk is the only place on the entire internet where you can get paid for your posts.

What's there to dislike about it?

And yet, some users dislike everything about it. Ironically, some of them are the real "bitcointalkers" — tech guys making $100k a year who would prefer this forum to be only about technology. The irony is that the site is called Bitcointalk, so in a way, it is their forum. But I'm glad they aren't allowed to impose their vision on everyone, even if they might feel they have the right to do so.

For those who don't want to read "signature spam" there's an option to ignore.

Quotes make it look like, it is exagerrated and not true, which is untrue. Anyhow, is ignoring user(s) really a solution? Individually, maybe but for the forum?

I'm not ignoring anybody. I think it's always better to see the whole picture.