If nothing else, the last few pages of this thread clearly show that some people clearly can't participate in the forum without being paid for it. If signatures were banned, the entire Gambling board would disappear in a week, and the first to stop writing would be those who think they were unfairly banned.
What I saw on these last few pages was a series of alternative accounts that were created solely and exclusively to attack other members.
The same people who created these accounts are most likely the same ones who already have two or three accounts, trying to obtain subscription campaigns or other advantages found on the forum.
So let them appear, because that way they'll be flagged from the start.
Given the circumstances, I understand that some users genuinely deserve sigban. But what about users like arallmuss who don't deserve to be sigban, and don't have someone influential users who can speak up for them compared what arallmuss sigban case support received?
It's true that arallmuus had users who started appealing even before he did.
But it's also true that his appeal wasn't simply: "My ban was unfair, I want to contest it, I request a review."
He appealed, explaining the situation and his point:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5588886.msg67027277#msg67027277The outcome simply shows that it's possible to have a ban reversed. Therefore, it demonstrates that the system works.
It's not about giving in to pressure; someone had to be the first. Because it's impossible for any analysis to be infallible. Of course it can be improved, and it is being improved as the system progresses.
As I said before, I haven't analyzed the arallmous case in depth, but the numbers don't lie. He was the only one of those banned so far who maintained his participation rate.
After him I see Jinetics1111, Sonia_123, ILuckyGuyI, dzonikg28 and Abiky, not far behind his media (but a little below - maybe the weekend?).
The other banned users have practically stopped posting. They are probably mostly alt accounts.
