Signature Campaign Ban Suggestion: Punishment length of time

[Fortify]

To cut straight to the point, can there be some discussion about the length of time that is applied in these cases. I say this after looking at some of the recent bans and finding little consistency (one is November 2026 expiry, one is Feb 2027, one is Aug 2027). If the goal is to rectify bad behaviour, can it be done in a way that applies a small amount of pain at the beginning and then much greater pain if things don't improve. It might require a bit more administration and overhead, but that should be minimal - maybe even automated.

The suggestion:
First offence - 2 week signature campaign ban.
Second offence - 2 month sig ban
Third offence - 2 year sig ban

With a 6 month expiry after the ban has been served (moving you back down a level). This seems like a reasonable balance while still hitting the intended objective to stop low quality posting. There would be ways to automate this process.

This would put people on notice and potentially allow (dependent on the manager) people to stay in their signature campaigns but not get paid for the period. The monetary hit/interruption should be enough to make people sit up and correct if laziness that has crept in. It would certainly have that effect on me.

What this post is not about
I'm very specifically not discussing how these bans get handed out and whether the bans are deserved, this is purely about the length of the "sentence"

To theymos:
You probably get thanked a dozen times a day and if not, you should. You've created this massive ecosystem with a component that has allowed people to make tens of millions of dollars in income (sig campaigns) over years. You quite rightly want to push standards higher and it was clear a lot of slop was accumulating merely to hit a posting objective. It is unfathomable the efforts you've put into this place and being constantly on alert to protect it. I and others are eternally grateful for this privilege you allow.

To nutildah:
You've been given an unenviable but admirable task to perform this cleanup. I can understand the process has to be manual and there are no clear cut rules, but can there at least be some understandable structure to the punishments and a little room for reprieve here, it would take a little bit of sting out of it all.

A little extra:
I questioned whether to post this, because undoubtedly it directs the spotlight on your own posting habits and they come under scrutiny. I'll admit I treat signature posting as a bit of a job, but that should not exclude someone entirely. I like my day job and put lots of effort into it, this is my side job and I try to do the same consistently - providing hopefully valuable thoughts, sharing knowledge and information. Sometimes there will be periods where I slack off at work and other times I'll be super high tier, but generally keeping a reasonable baseline quality. As a nobody here, this post might get discarded and there's no problem with that.

This is a bit like a pendulum, where you have too much spam on one side and too much rigidity in posting on the other. You want the pendulum to swing around in the middle, allowing for casual randomness in places alongside indepth technical analysis. There may be a chilling effect right now where nobody wants to speak out fearing more scrutiny and it possibly stops more general discussion which might otherwise be taking place. At least if the bans have some kind of uniformity and a little slack on the first one, then people feel less helpless.

Now, as this post is in meta, I look forward to it being dissected in a hundred different ways but the main idea here is about structure to the punishment to improve posting quality. What are everyone else's thoughts on this?

[Satofan44]

The suggestion:
First offence - 2 week signature campaign ban.
Second offence - 2 month sig ban
Third offence - 2 year sig ban

This kind of proposal is never good because the "first offense" for which one gets punished is never equal between different offenders, and there is no such thing as "first offense" when someone has been shitposting and spamming for months or years. Some users are borderline shitposters and they can be given small time outs, others are extreme shitposters and have been for years -- they can't receive the same punishment as someone who is barely a shitposter. All you would do with a proposal like this is reward the most extreme offenders with leniency, think about it.

Bans should get progressively longer for repeat offenders, but that should not mean that the system should become lenient towards extreme offenders who are receiving their first punishment.

This is a bit like a pendulum, where you have too much spam on one side and too much rigidity in posting on the other. You want the pendulum to swing around in the middle, allowing for casual randomness in places alongside indepth technical analysis. There may be a chilling effect right now where nobody wants to speak out fearing more scrutiny and it possibly stops more general discussion which might otherwise be taking place. At least if the bans have some kind of uniformity and a little slack on the first one, then people feel less helpless.

The bans literally do not have anything to do with technical literacy, so this addition is meaningless. If they did, 99% of the current signature campaign participants would need to be signature banned. This is not a criteria that nutildah is considering when deciding whether to issue a signature ban.

[Fortify]

Bans should get progressively longer for repeat offenders, but that should not mean that the system should become lenient towards extreme offenders who are receiving their first punishment.

So.. we agree? "Extreme offenders" would just be regular spammers who would be banned outright anyway. Nobody would care if they got banned, it's a moot point.

The bans literally do not have anything to do with technical literacy, so this addition is meaningless. If they did, 99% of the current signature campaign participants would need to be signature banned. This is not a criteria that nutildah is considering when deciding whether to issue a signature ban.

The dissection begins, you've veered straight into "how and whether these bans are deserved". You've honed in on particular part of a sentence and seem to have taken offense rather quickly in your own interpretation.

[Satofan44]

Bans should get progressively longer for repeat offenders, but that should not mean that the system should become lenient towards extreme offenders who are receiving their first punishment.

So.. we agree? "Extreme offenders" would just be regular spammers who would be banned outright anyway. Nobody would care if they got banned, it's a moot point.

Only partially. You want to lower the offense for first time offenders regardless of their offense with a progressive system, I say that a progressive system is good but without leniency and punishment standardization across offenses of different severity. Let's put it in a real life example.

First time offender A: Physically beats up a single person.
First time offender B: Physically beats up 10 people.

Should they receive the same punishment because it is their "first time"? Of course not, no legal system or sound punishment system works like that -- first-time "offender" and severity of offense are completely different concepts and considerations. Actually extreme offenders here have not been banned almost at all, it is very rare that you find them being issued very long bans. Take a look at the users who received very long signature bans.

The bans literally do not have anything to do with technical literacy, so this addition is meaningless. If they did, 99% of the current signature campaign participants would need to be signature banned. This is not a criteria that nutildah is considering when deciding whether to issue a signature ban.

The dissection begins, you've veered straight into "how and whether these bans are deserved". You've honed in on particular part of a sentence and seem to have taken offense rather quickly in your own interpretation.

What do you mean I took offense? I just told you how things really are relating to that particular point, no offense has been taken. nutildah is not considering technical literacy at all. An user might as well believe that Bitcoin operates using pigeons, as long as his posts are substantial and useful then he would not get a signature ban.

[Lucius]

~snip~
A little extra:
I questioned whether to post this, because undoubtedly it directs the spotlight on your own posting habits and they come under scrutiny. I'll admit I treat signature posting as a bit of a job, but that should not exclude someone entirely. I like my day job and put lots of effort into it, this is my side job and I try to do the same consistently - providing hopefully valuable thoughts, sharing knowledge and information. Sometimes there will be periods where I slack off at work and other times I'll be super high tier, but generally keeping a reasonable baseline quality. As a nobody here, this post might get discarded and there's no problem with that.

I simply have to comment on this in relation to the idea you present here.

The problem with all these spammers and sig abusers is precisely that they treat the forum as a place where they make money. The forum was never meant to be that kind of place, and those who turn it into something like that deserve a much bigger punishment than two weeks without a signature. I believe that the length of the ban is completely justified, and personally I wouldn't go for less than 6 months as a minimum.

[Fortify]

Only partially. You want to lower the offense for first time offenders regardless of their offense with a progressive system, I say that a progressive system is good but without leniency and punishment standardization across offenses of different severity. Let's put it in a real life example.

First time offender A: Physically beats up a single person.
First time offender B: Physically beats up 10 people.

Should they receive the same punishment because it is their "first time"? Of course not, no legal system or sound punishment system works like that -- first-time "offender" and severity of offense are completely different concepts and considerations. Actually extreme offenders here have not been banned almost at all, it is very rare that you find them being issued very long bans. Take a look at the users who received very long signature bans.

You're comparing committing violence against a person with filling up threads with nonsense text. It's a false comparison. In your example of somebody beating someone up I'd expect them to get the plenty of jail time. For the most egregious offenders there's nothing wrong with sending them straight to a 2 month or 2 year sig ban, or banning them outright. The default should be the lower threshold.

The problem with all these spammers and sig abusers is precisely that they treat the forum as a place where they make money. The forum was never meant to be that kind of place, and those who turn it into something like that deserve a much bigger punishment than two weeks without a signature. I believe that the length of the ban is completely justified, and personally I wouldn't go for less than 6 months as a minimum.

Lucius, you're correct and maybe that's just me saying the quiet part out loud. However if signature campaigns are allowed then people are getting paid to post, which is akin to a job. Since signature campaigns are allowed, just putting the label "job" on it doesn't change whats happening. Again, this is steering away from the original suggestion.

[Lucius]

~snip~
Lucius, you're correct and maybe that's just me saying the quiet part out loud. However if signature campaigns are allowed then people are getting paid to post, which is akin to a job. Since signature campaigns are allowed, just putting the label "job" on it doesn't change whats happening. Again, this is steering away from the original suggestion.

I'm not saying there's no truth in what you write, but we should try to change that if at all possible. Being a robot and putting out xx posts every week because that's a campaign requirement is not behavior that should be encouraged, quite the opposite. Signature campaigns should only be a bonus for active participation in the forum, not the main reason why someone is here.

Since there's no point in answering your question with yes or no, I don't think I've strayed from the topic if I've tried to explain why I don't think your idea is a good one. Moreover, I will say that the current initiative is far more humane than the one that happened a few years ago, when thousands of users were permanently banned, and many received rather long sig bans.

[OcTradism]

I simply have to comment on this in relation to the idea you present here.

The problem with all these spammers and sig abusers is precisely that they treat the forum as a place where they make money. The forum was never meant to be that kind of place, and those who turn it into something like that deserve a much bigger punishment than two weeks without a signature. I believe that the length of the ban is completely justified, and personally I wouldn't go for less than 6 months as a minimum.

Writing a welcome message.

theymos wrote that the forum gives people chances to work, get money, improve their finance and life but must do it rightly and don't affect the forum with spams. It is only wrong and annoying when people spam to get posts, get money, and by doing spams like that, they are self fish and only care about themselves.

While they must know another fact that chances they are given by admins are only privileges and are not rights.

The purpose of the forum

This forum exists to provide a platform for the free (but ordered) exchange of ideas. If you have an idea to express, then it is probably possible to do it here as long as you follow the rules.

A lot of people come here primarily looking to make money. The forum administration is very happy that people are able to use the forum in order to better themselves; indeed, one of the reasons for Bitcoin's creation was to break the artificial barriers which prevent so many people around the world from attaining prosperity. However, if your attempts to make money conflict with the forum's primary goal of enabling discussion, then you are swimming upstream, and you will not be sucessful in the end.

If you view the forum as some sort of "job" where you complete some basic tasks and get paid, then you will almost certainly be disappointed, and the forum administration will not be sympathetic. If you do make money using the forum, then it will be through innovation and entrepreneurship, not any sort of mindless busywork.

[Satofan44]

Only partially. You want to lower the offense for first time offenders regardless of their offense with a progressive system, I say that a progressive system is good but without leniency and punishment standardization across offenses of different severity. Let's put it in a real life example.

First time offender A: Physically beats up a single person.
First time offender B: Physically beats up 10 people.

Should they receive the same punishment because it is their "first time"? Of course not, no legal system or sound punishment system works like that -- first-time "offender" and severity of offense are completely different concepts and considerations. Actually extreme offenders here have not been banned almost at all, it is very rare that you find them being issued very long bans. Take a look at the users who received very long signature bans.

You're comparing committing violence against a person with filling up threads with nonsense text. It's a false comparison. In your example of somebody beating someone up I'd expect them to get the plenty of jail time. For the most egregious offenders there's nothing wrong with sending them straight to a 2 month or 2 year sig ban, or banning them outright. The default should be the lower threshold.

No, it is not a false comparison because I am not trying to create equivalence. I used an example of the real world how systems of punishment deal with first time offenders depending on the severity of the crime. Stop trying to dismiss the argument when you are wrong, and start trying to understand by actually listening. Ask ChatGPT and it will confirm everything that I have wrote, using any kind of example of crime or malicious behavior. The more you keep insisting on lower initial bans, the more I am starting to think that you are trying to ensure that your account (or accounts) get a lenient punishment in case you get a signature ban.

Were it up to me, the first offense would be 5 year signature ban and second offense would be a nuke to 0 posts and permanent ban without appeal. Luckily theymos is in charge, right?  

[libert19]

Luckily theymos is in charge, right?  

If you were in charge of the forum, or anywhere else really in position of power you would burn that place to ashes.